Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "137632".
Did you mean:
137332
2020 Aug 14
2
Fwd: Deterministic function return attribute
...t can a compiler can be,
> for fun. Secondarily, tocommunicate with the optimizer when writing in
> C.
I would also like to improve the communication/interface, believe me...
In addition to talk above, I'd also recommend to look at
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html
and the `assume` directive we added to OpenMP 5.1:
https://www.openmp.org/wp-content/uploads/openmp-TR8.pdf
~ Johannes
> Thanks, László
>
> On 8/13/20, Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi László,
>>
>> On 8/13/...
2020 Sep 22
2
Is it valid to dereference a pointer that have undef bits in its offset?
Thank you for the infos; it seems making it raise UB is problematic.
Would clarifying it in LangRef be good? I can update the patch to contain
the information instead.
Another concern is then, how can we efficiently encode an assumption that a
pointer variable in IR does not have undef bits?
Certainly, in the front-end language, (most of) pointers won't have undef
bits, and it would be great
2008 Apr 11
1
CRAM-MD5 Password Generation Algorithm
Hi,
I'm just in the middle of setting up dovecot to serve IMAPS -- Actually
I've finished apart from one thing: CRAM-MD5 passwords.
I'm using SQL as a backend for the password storage, and I don't want to
store the passwords in plaintext. I've also configured dovecot to be rather
restrictive when it comes to authentication methods (only CRAM-MD5 is
allowed).
To generate the
2020 Aug 13
3
Deterministic function return attribute
Hi!
I'm interested in what attributes in LLVM mean, specifically how to
say that the result is always the same for the given input parameters.
The main thing would be to merge two calls with the same parameters
when the function is declared but not defined. (just like two stores).
I'll call this property mergability.
%1 := call @test(%0)
%2 := call @test(%0)
and the optimization would
2020 Jan 17
3
Help with SROA throwing away no-alias information
I'm having an issue where SROA will throw away no-alias information on some
loads after inlining, because the loads are derived from a store to an
alloca which can be removed after inlining.
The pointers that were originally stored into the alloca do *not *have any
aliasing information - the only context that allowed me to assert aliasing
was that the inlined-function guaranteed it to be so.