Displaying 12 results from an estimated 12 matches for "chabbi".
2013 Jul 18
2
[LLVMdev] About LLVM switch instruction
....
-Milind
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Milind,
>
> Maybe you could annotate the default case value as metadata to the swith
> instruction.
>
> Thanks
> Hongbin
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Milind Chabbi <Milind.Chabbi at rice.edu>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> This will workaround the problem of "default" branch restriction on
>> the switch instruction. The trouble with this technique is that it
>> will trump later optimization phases such as...
2013 Jul 18
4
[LLVMdev] About LLVM switch instruction
...date for better optimization. However,
when we move the body of the case into the default, the knowledge of
the case value is lost and the body is less optimizable.
-Milind
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Mark Lacey <mark.lacey at apple.com> wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2013, at 9:01 PM, Milind Chabbi <Milind.Chabbi at rice.edu> wrote:
>> I am performing a transformation that requires changing the targets of
>> a basic block ending with a switch instruction.
>> In particular, I need to delete the edge that goes to the "default"
>> basic block.
>> But...
2013 Jul 18
0
[LLVMdev] About LLVM switch instruction
...t block.
In order to take the advantage of the attached metadata for the default
case of the switch instruction you also need to modify the later
optimization accordingly.
Thanks
Hongbin
[1]http://blog.llvm.org/2010/04/extensible-metadata-in-llvm-ir.html
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Milind Chabbi <Milind.Chabbi at rice.edu>wrote:
> Hongbin
>
> Can you elaborate more on your suggestion? I am not sure I fully
> understand what you suggested.
>
> -Milind
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Mi...
2013 Jul 18
0
[LLVMdev] About LLVM switch instruction
Hi Milind,
Maybe you could annotate the default case value as metadata to the swith
instruction.
Thanks
Hongbin
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Milind Chabbi <Milind.Chabbi at rice.edu>wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> This will workaround the problem of "default" branch restriction on
> the switch instruction. The trouble with this technique is that it
> will trump later optimization phases such as constant propagation.
> When a...
2013 Jul 18
0
[LLVMdev] About LLVM switch instruction
On Jul 17, 2013, at 10:09 PM, Milind Chabbi <Milind.Chabbi at rice.edu> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> This will workaround the problem of "default" branch restriction on
> the switch instruction. The trouble with this technique is that it
> will trump later optimization phases such as constant propagation.
> When a...
2013 Jul 18
0
[LLVMdev] About LLVM switch instruction
On Jul 17, 2013, at 9:01 PM, Milind Chabbi <Milind.Chabbi at rice.edu> wrote:
> I am performing a transformation that requires changing the targets of
> a basic block ending with a switch instruction.
> In particular, I need to delete the edge that goes to the "default"
> basic block.
> But, LLVM switch instru...
2013 Jul 18
2
[LLVMdev] About LLVM switch instruction
I am performing a transformation that requires changing the targets of
a basic block ending with a switch instruction.
In particular, I need to delete the edge that goes to the "default"
basic block.
But, LLVM switch instruction always wants a default target basic block
for a switch instruction.
It is not clear how to accomplish this, since I don't have a
replacement default target
2013 Aug 09
0
[LLVMdev] opt -O3 causes Assertion `New->getType() == getType() && "replaceAllUses of value with new value of different type!"' failed
Hi,
I don't see the LLVM bug I filed
(http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16780) making any progress.
Can someone suggest me whether the bug is in the correct state?
-Milind
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Milind Chabbi <Milind.Chabbi at rice.edu> wrote:
> Hi Hal,
>
> I have filed http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16780
>
> -Milind
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>> Milind,
>>
>> Have you filed a bug on this? If not, c...
2013 Aug 02
2
[LLVMdev] opt -O3 causes Assertion `New->getType() == getType() && "replaceAllUses of value with new value of different type!"' failed
Hi Hal,
I have filed http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16780
-Milind
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> Milind,
>
> Have you filed a bug on this? If not, can you please open a bug report (http://llvm.org/bugs)?
>
> -Hal
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> I am hitting an LLVM assertion from the llc tool iff the bitcode
2016 Apr 20
3
RFC: EfficiencySanitizer
On 04/20/2016 02:58 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote:
> Hi Derek,
>
> I'm not an expert in any of these topics, but I'm excited that you
> guys are doing it. It seems like a missing piece that needs to be
> filled.
>
> Some comments inline...
>
>
> On 17 April 2016 at 22:46, Derek Bruening via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
2013 Jul 30
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM (opt) -profile-verifier is not pass resilient
I compiled SPEC CPU2006 bzip2 with Clang, and generated profiles with
OPT's -insert-optimal-edge-profiling option.
After a profile run, I launched OPT with -profile-loader
-profile-verifier flags and also passed -O3 flag. This caused OPT to
give a warning "WARNING: profile information is inconsistent with the
current program!" and then fail with an assert (ASSERT:inWeight and
2013 Jul 29
2
[LLVMdev] opt -O3 causes Assertion `New->getType() == getType() && "replaceAllUses of value with new value of different type!"' failed
I am hitting an LLVM assertion from the llc tool iff the bitcode file
is optimized at -O3 level by opt). -O1 and -O2 levels of opt do not
cause this assert.
LLVM version 3.4svn
DEBUG build with assertions.
Built Jul 14 2013 (15:39:08).
Default target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Host CPU: amdfam10
I have attached the input bc file before -O3 optimization :bzip2.del.bc.tgz
I have attached