search for: bit_encoding

...method that "moves/merges" metadata should look at the annotation and decide based on the operands if > the annotation is valid for the replacement instruction or an instruction in the vicinity. If this sounds reasonable > we could use a second argument, e.g., below `!0 = !{!1, i64 BIT_ENCODING}` where the bits in BIT_ENCODING define > properties of the annotation. One could be that it is fixed to the instruction opcode, e.g., if you replace a store > with a memset you drop the annotation. Though, we would add these things on a case-by-case basis I guess. > That’s a good point....

...that "moves/merges" metadata should look at the annotation and decide based on the operands if >> the annotation is valid for the replacement instruction or an instruction in the vicinity. If this sounds reasonable >> we could use a second argument, e.g., below `!0 = !{!1, i64 BIT_ENCODING}` where the bits in BIT_ENCODING define >> properties of the annotation. One could be that it is fixed to the instruction opcode, e.g., if you replace a store >> with a memset you drop the annotation. Though, we would add these things on a case-by-case basis I guess. >> > That’...

Hi, I would like to propose a new !annotation metadata kind that can be attached to arbitrary instructions to drive generating remarks that provide additional insight into transformations applied to a program. To motivate this, consider these specific questions we would like to get answered: * How many stores added for automatic variable initialization remain after optimizations? Where are

...y. The method that "moves/merges" metadata should look at the annotation and decide based on the operands if the annotation is valid for the replacement instruction or an instruction in the vicinity. If this sounds reasonable we could use a second argument, e.g., below `!0 = !{!1, i64 BIT_ENCODING}` where the bits in BIT_ENCODING define properties of the annotation. One could be that it is fixed to the instruction opcode, e.g., if you replace a store with a memset you drop the annotation. Though, we would add these things on a case-by-case basis I guess. > > Examples: > >...

...ot;moves/merges" metadata should look at the annotation and decide based on the operands if >>> the annotation is valid for the replacement instruction or an instruction in the vicinity. If this sounds reasonable >>> we could use a second argument, e.g., below `!0 = !{!1, i64 BIT_ENCODING}` where the bits in BIT_ENCODING define >>> properties of the annotation. One could be that it is fixed to the instruction opcode, e.g., if you replace a store >>> with a memset you drop the annotation. Though, we would add these things on a case-by-case basis I guess. >>&gt...