Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "c5c07f0c".
2012 Jan 31
0
[LLVMdev] tbaa differences in llvm 3.0
On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:04 PM, Hal Finkel wrote:
>
> Dan, where in the code is this done? I see a comment at the end of
> BasicAliasAnalysis::aliasGEP regarding "protecting TBAA in the case of
> dynamic indices into arrays of unions"; are you referring to that?
Yes. And looking at the testcase, this appears to be the problem.
Dan
2012 Feb 07
1
[LLVMdev] tbaa differences in llvm 3.0
...gt; Yes. And looking at the testcase, this appears to be the problem.
>
> Dan
>
>
--
Not sent from my Blackberry, Raspberry or Gooseberry!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120206/c5c07f0c/attachment.html>
2012 Jan 31
3
[LLVMdev] tbaa differences in llvm 3.0
On Fri, 2012-01-27 at 16:46 -0800, Dan Gohman wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2012, at 4:15 PM, Maurice Marks wrote:
>
> > Our application generates IR that is used to generate X86_64 code for a Jit. We noticed that code generated with llvm 3.0 is worse in some circumstances that it was with 2.9. I traced the differences to alias analysis differences. Our IR references data structures that have