search for: dannyb

I thought this conversation was worth saving. DannyB who did wonderful things with GCC's use of bugzilla has offered the same capability to LLVM. Thanks, Danny! <DannyB> sabre: BTW, if you need any of the bugzilla fun i have implemented for gcc, let me know [22:47] <sabre> Cool, what kinds of things do you have? [22:47] <DannyB&g...

...; > if (greater && b) { > if (n1 == n2) { > return false; // unreachable > } > } > return true; > } > > The line marked unreachable cannot be reached, however currently LLVM does > not optimize it out ????? Yes it does. [dannyb at dannyb-macbookpro3 18:39:18] ~/sources/llvm (git-svn)-[newgvn-predicates]- :( $ clang -c -emit-llvm ~/greater.c -O1 [dannyb at dannyb-macbookpro3 18:39:22] ~/sources/llvm (git-svn)-[newgvn-predicates]- :) $ debug-build/bin/llvm-dis greater.bc [dannyb at dannyb-macbookpro3 18:39:24] ~/sources/llv...

Hi all, Consider this C code: #include <stdbool.h> bool func(int n1, int n2, bool b) { bool greater = n1 > n2; if (greater && b) { if (n1 == n2) { return false; // unreachable } } return true; } The line marked unreachable cannot be reached, however currently LLVM does not optimize it out. I believe this is because LLVM does not

...#39;m not familiar with GVN but it doesn't seem to help for this modified test case either. Carlos, in answer to your original question, you may want to see if you can make LLVM get this case by modifying processCmp in lib/Transforms/Scalar/CorrelatedValuePropagation.cpp -- Sean Silva > [dannyb at dannyb-macbookpro3 18:39:18] ~/sources/llvm > (git-svn)-[newgvn-predicates]- :( $ clang -c -emit-llvm ~/greater.c -O1 > [dannyb at dannyb-macbookpro3 18:39:22] ~/sources/llvm > (git-svn)-[newgvn-predicates]- :) $ debug-build/bin/llvm-dis greater.bc > [dannyb at dannyb-macbookpro3 18:...

...; test case either. >> >> Carlos, in answer to your original question, you may want to see if you >> can make LLVM get this case by modifying processCmp in >> lib/Transforms/Scalar/CorrelatedValuePropagation.cpp >> >> -- Sean Silva >> >> >>> [dannyb at dannyb-macbookpro3 18:39:18] ~/sources/llvm >>> (git-svn)-[newgvn-predicates]- :( $ clang -c -emit-llvm ~/greater.c -O1 >>> [dannyb at dannyb-macbookpro3 18:39:22] ~/sources/llvm >>> (git-svn)-[newgvn-predicates]- :) $ debug-build/bin/llvm-dis greater.bc >>> [...

...;>> Carlos, in answer to your original question, you may want to see if you >>> can make LLVM get this case by modifying processCmp in >>> lib/Transforms/Scalar/CorrelatedValuePropagation.cpp >>> >>> -- Sean Silva >>> >>> >>>> [dannyb at dannyb-macbookpro3 18:39:18] ~/sources/llvm >>>> (git-svn)-[newgvn-predicates]- :( $ clang -c -emit-llvm ~/greater.c -O1 >>>> [dannyb at dannyb-macbookpro3 18:39:22] ~/sources/llvm >>>> (git-svn)-[newgvn-predicates]- :) $ debug-build/bin/llvm-dis greater.bc &g...

...t seem to help for this modified > test case either. > > Carlos, in answer to your original question, you may want to see if you > can make LLVM get this case by modifying processCmp in > lib/Transforms/Scalar/CorrelatedValuePropagation.cpp > > -- Sean Silva > > >> [dannyb at dannyb-macbookpro3 18:39:18] ~/sources/llvm >> (git-svn)-[newgvn-predicates]- :( $ clang -c -emit-llvm ~/greater.c -O1 >> [dannyb at dannyb-macbookpro3 18:39:22] ~/sources/llvm >> (git-svn)-[newgvn-predicates]- :) $ debug-build/bin/llvm-dis greater.bc >> [dannyb at dannyb...

...ote: > cat > test.c > > #define SIZE 128 > > void bar(int *restrict A, int* restrict B,int K) { > > #pragma clang loop vectorize(enable) vectorize_width(2) unroll_count(8) > > for (int i = 0; i < SIZE; ++i) > > A[i] += B[i] + K; > > } > > [dannyb at dannyb-macbookpro3 11:37:20] ~ :) $ clang -O3 test.c -c > -save-temps > [dannyb at dannyb-macbookpro3 11:38:28] ~ :) $ pcregrep -i "^\s*p" > test.s|less > pushq %rbp > pshufd $68, %xmm0, %xmm0 ## xmm0 = xmm0[0,1,0,1] > pslldq $8, %xm...

...to your original question, you may want to see if you >>>> can make LLVM get this case by modifying processCmp in >>>> lib/Transforms/Scalar/CorrelatedValuePropagation.cpp >>>> >>>> -- Sean Silva >>>> >>>> >>>>> [dannyb at dannyb-macbookpro3 18:39:18] ~/sources/llvm >>>>> (git-svn)-[newgvn-predicates]- :( $ clang -c -emit-llvm ~/greater.c -O1 >>>>> [dannyb at dannyb-macbookpro3 18:39:22] ~/sources/llvm >>>>> (git-svn)-[newgvn-predicates]- :) $ debug-build/bin/llvm-dis g...

Hi Daniel, I increased the size of your test to be 128 but -stats still shows no loop optimized... Xiaochu On Aug 12, 2016 11:11 AM, "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > It's not possible to know that A and B don't alias in this example. It's > almost certainly not profitable to add a runtime check given the size of > the loop. > > >

...nstant > > Propagation > > PM->add(createDeadArgEliminationPass()); // Dead argument > > elimination > > } > > > > I thought I understood why but it seems that I don't :) > > IMO, we should avoid using flag_unit_at_a_time here. given DannyB's explanation that this flag exists in gcc so that glibc works properly in spite of abusing ASM, perhaps this logic in llvm-backend also exists to ensure that glibc works? Ciao, Duncan.

19.08.2016, 18:30, "Renato Golin via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > On 19 August 2016 at 16:22, C Bergström <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>  Have you ever stayed in a non-hilton hotel while traveling? I don't >>  mean couch surfing, but just average place.. I'd even add some above >>  average places to the list and when you get

In a discussion on IRC, Micheal was complaining about the semantics of StringSet, specifically how the iterators work. DannyB mentioned that we have a Trie class, so I decided to check it out. Lo and behold, I couldn't find _any_ uses of it, and when I deleted it from my system and did a clean rebuild, everything was fine. Looking at the log, the last substantial change to this class was in 2007. So - is anyone usin...

...butors. > Even better, most LLVM contributors are still around. > If you have to rewrite a little code along the way to account for > folks you can't find, this is probably worth the expense anyway (and > i'm pretty sure we'd be happy to fund it :P). > After talking with DannyB, I now am strongly in the camp that we should do #4 whole-sale, and make everything hold a license that works for runtimes. We can potentially move completely away from dual-licensing. We can definitely drive this effort if the community is supportive, including re-writing parts of the codebase fr...

Delete it. =] Thanks. On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > In a discussion on IRC, Micheal was complaining about the semantics of > StringSet, specifically how the iterators work. > > DannyB mentioned that we have a Trie class, so I decided to check it out. > Lo and behold, I couldn't find _any_ uses of it, and when I deleted it > from my system and did a clean rebuild, everything was fine. > > Looking at the log, the last substantial change to this class was in 2007. &...

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Duncan Sands wrote: >>> I thought I understood why but it seems that I don't :) >> >> IMO, we should avoid using flag_unit_at_a_time here. > > given DannyB's explanation that this flag exists in gcc so that glibc > works properly in spite of abusing ASM, perhaps this logic in llvm-backend > also exists to ensure that glibc works? I think it would be reasonable to turn off some of the more aggressive IPO xforms when -fno-unit-at-a-time is s...

...most LLVM contributors are still around. >> If you have to rewrite a little code along the way to account for >> folks you can't find, this is probably worth the expense anyway (and >> i'm pretty sure we'd be happy to fund it :P). >> > > After talking with DannyB, I now am strongly in the camp that we should do > #4 whole-sale, and make everything hold a license that works for > runtimes. We can potentially move completely away from dual-licensing. > > We can definitely drive this effort if the community is supportive, > including re-writing...

...are still around. >>> If you have to rewrite a little code along the way to account for >>> folks you can't find, this is probably worth the expense anyway (and >>> i'm pretty sure we'd be happy to fund it :P). >>> >> >> After talking with DannyB, I now am strongly in the camp that we should >> do #4 whole-sale, and make everything hold a license that works for >> runtimes. We can potentially move completely away from dual-licensing. >> >> We can definitely drive this effort if the community is supportive, >> i...

On 19 October 2015 at 18:12, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > One worry is that Apache 2 is incompatible with GPLv2 (is it incompatible with other licenses?) This is interesting, I did not know that... http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html "Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache License to be compatible

...needs? Yes, I don’t see anything functionally or use-case different between LLD and Clang or LLDB. > - What about derived software? You need to specify what you mean by derived, I’ll answer the specific questions below to the best of my knowledge. However, it would be great for someone like DannyB to confirm this. > Would this also apply if I'd be using > the Swift compiler to generate an executable that contains some bits > from compiler-rt? Yes, the runtime exception clause covers the code being embedded (compiler-rt) not relating to how it got embedded. FWIW, Swift already...