search for: aarzee

Sure On Mon, Jul 4, 2016, 9:40 AM Carlos Liam <carlos at aarzee.me> wrote: > It looks like there's already something similar in PropagateEquality which > eg X >= Y == true and replaces X < Y == false, which is somewhat similar - > could I base an addition off of that? > > > - CL > > On Jul 3, 2016, at 7:13 PM, Daniel Berli...

...go looking at uses of variables compared in predicates in PropagateEquality and if the uses appear in a comparison that is dominated by the true or false edge of the existing predicate, see if it tells you something about the dominated one. On Mon, Jul 4, 2016, 8:23 AM Carlos Liam <carlos at aarzee.me> wrote: > That seems ominous; should I not bother? > > - CL > > On Jul 3, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > PropagateEquality in gvn.cpp > > However, if you are going to do it, remember the goal is to make the code > simp...

PropagateEquality in gvn.cpp However, if you are going to do it, remember the goal is to make the code simpler and easier, not just pile on to the current mess to catch more cases :) On Mon, Jul 4, 2016, 7:51 AM Carlos Liam <carlos at aarzee.me> wrote: > Where would I look to change the equality propagation? > > > - CL > > On Jun 30, 2016, at 11:45 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > The current gvn equality propagation is not powerful enough to get this > because it doesn't t...

I have IR at https://ghostbin.com/paste/daxv5 <https://ghostbin.com/paste/daxv5> which is meant to exit 1, but it is always exiting 0. I'm using it as a template for checking if two functions @test1 and @test2 are equivalent by checking against the exhaustive possible i16 values. For this particular example it should be enough to know that for certain i16, @test1 and @test2 are *not*

My understanding is that this checks whether the bit width of the integer *type* fits in the bit width of the mantissa, not the bit width of the integer value. - CL > On Apr 14, 2016, at 6:02 PM, escha at apple.com wrote: > > We already do this to some extent; see this code in InstCombineCasts: > > // fpto{s/u}i({u/s}itofp(X)) --> X or zext(X) or sext(X) or trunc(X) > //

I am not entirely sure this is safe. Transforming this to an fsub could change the value stored on platforms that implement negates using arithmetic instead of with bitmath (such as ours) and either canonicalize NaNs or don’t support denormals. This is actually important because this kind of bitmath on floats is very commonly used as part of algorithms for complex math functions that need to get

The current gvn equality propagation is not powerful enough to get this because it doesn't try to infer values in predicates based on other predicates, so it never realizes a>b -> a !=b in a useful way. It otherwise would get this On Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 7:41 PM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev <