search for: bmakam

I will try to reduce a test case for the regression I found and will update. Thanks, Balaram From: Friedman, Eli [mailto:efriedma at codeaurora.org] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 2:54 PM To: Balaram Makam <bmakam at codeaurora.org>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] LoopSimplify pass prevents loop unrolling On 6/30/2017 11:38 AM, Balaram Makam wrote: Thanks Eli, I was looking at this code which keeps track of loop headers but is checking if the destination of branch is a loop he...

On 6/30/2017 11:38 AM, Balaram Makam wrote: > > Thanks Eli, > > I was looking at this code which keeps track of loop headers but is > checking if the destination of branch is a loop header sufficient? > This prevents merging empty preheaders into the loop headers as well. > There isn't really any reason to collapse preheaders anyway; LoopSimplify will recreate them,

...waran is > > > > class A{ > > int foo () { return 1; } > > ... > > }; > > > > where 'foo' is not explicitly declared with 'inline' keyword. > > > > David > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Balaram Makam <bmakam at codeaurora.org> > wrote: > >> AFAIK, this was fixed in r233817. That was later reverted. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On > >> Behalf Of Easwaran Ram...

that looks like a different fix. The case mentioned by Easwaran is class A{ int foo () { return 1; } ... }; where 'foo' is not explicitly declared with 'inline' keyword. David On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Balaram Makam <bmakam at codeaurora.org> wrote: > AFAIK, this was fixed in r233817. > > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of Easwaran Raman > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 6:59 PM > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu &gt...

...back by another thread. - speculatively executing loads might not be observable in some specific case but may always introduce races, thus introducing undefined behaviour and breaking assumptions that other passes may rely on. Best regards, Robin On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Balaram Makam <bmakam at codeaurora.org> wrote: All, If we can speculatively execute a load instruction, why isn’t it safe to hoist it out by promoting it to a scalar in LICM pass? There is a comment in LICM pass that if a load/store is conditional then it is not safe because it would break the LLVM concurrency mo...

...; } >> > > ... >> > > }; >> > > >> > > where 'foo' is not explicitly declared with 'inline' keyword. >> > > >> > > David >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Balaram Makam <bmakam at codeaurora.org> >> > wrote: >> > >> AFAIK, this was fixed in r233817. >> >> That was later reverted. >> >> > >> >> > >> -----Original Message----- >> > >> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu >> >...

...;> > > >> >> > > where 'foo' is not explicitly declared with 'inline' keyword. >> >> > > >> >> > > David >> >> > > >> >> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Balaram Makam >> <bmakam at codeaurora.org> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> AFAIK, this was fixed in r233817. >> >> >> >> That was later reverted. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> -----Original Message----- >> &g...

...;> > > >> >> > > where 'foo' is not explicitly declared with 'inline' keyword. >> >> > > >> >> > > David >> >> > > >> >> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Balaram Makam >> <bmakam at codeaurora.org> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> AFAIK, this was fixed in r233817. >> >> >> >> That was later reverted. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> -----Original Message----- >> &g...

...ively executing loads might not be observable in some specific case but may always introduce races, thus introducing undefined behaviour and breaking assumptions that other passes may rely on. > > Best regards, > Robin > > >> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Balaram Makam <bmakam at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> All, >> >> If we can speculatively execute a load instruction, why isn’t it safe to hoist it out by promoting it to a scalar in LICM pass? >> >> >> There is a comment in LICM pass that if a load/store is conditional then it is n...

...here 'foo' is not explicitly declared with 'inline' keyword. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > David >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Balaram Makam >> >> <bmakam at codeaurora.org> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> > >> AFAIK, this was fixed in r233817. >> >> >> >> >> >> That was later reverted. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >&gt...

All, If we can speculatively execute a load instruction, why isn’t it safe to hoist it out by promoting it to a scalar in LICM pass? There is a comment in LICM pass that if a load/store is conditional then it is not safe because it would break the LLVM concurrency model (See commit 73bfa4a). It has an IR test for checking this in test/Transforms/LICM/scalar-promote-memmodel.ll However, I have

...here 'foo' is not explicitly declared with 'inline' keyword. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > David >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Balaram Makam >> >> <bmakam at codeaurora.org> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> > >> AFAIK, this was fixed in r233817. >> >> >> >> >> >> That was later reverted. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >&gt...

...here 'foo' is not explicitly declared with 'inline' keyword. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > David >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Balaram Makam >> >> <bmakam at codeaurora.org> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> > >> AFAIK, this was fixed in r233817. >> >> >> >> >> >> That was later reverted. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >&gt...

Clang adds the InlineHint attribute to functions that are explicitly marked inline, but not if they are defined in the class body. I tried the following patch, which I believe handles the in-class definition case: --- a/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.cpp +++ b/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.cpp @@ -630,7 +630,7 @@ void CodeGenFunction::StartFunction(GlobalDecl GD, if (const FunctionDecl *FD =

On 6/30/2017 7:48 AM, Balaram Makam via llvm-dev wrote: > > Edit. Predecessor -> successor. > > *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf > Of *Balaram Makam via llvm-dev > *Sent:* Friday, June 30, 2017 10:47 AM > *To:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > *Subject:* [llvm-dev] LoopSimplify pass prevents loop unrolling > > Hi All, > >

...with 'inline' keyword. >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > David >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Balaram Makam >> >> >> <bmakam at codeaurora.org> >> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> AFAIK, this was fixed in r233817. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That was later reverted. >> >> >> >> >> &gt...

...with 'inline' keyword. >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > David >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Balaram Makam >> >> >> <bmakam at codeaurora.org> >> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> AFAIK, this was fixed in r233817. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That was later reverted. >> >> >> >> >> &gt...