search for: dinar

Indeed. But the problem here is that Dinar is trying to keep information after a load/store is removed by instcombine For example: v4sf v = {p[0], p[1], p[2], p[3]}; v4sf v2 = shuffle(v, 0, 0, 2, 2); Some pass comes in and removes the p[3] and p[1]. Now you have smaller code, but lost the ability to use a vector load for all those value...

On 09/26/2017 08:31 AM, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote: > Hi Hal, >> Are you primarily concerned with being able to widen loads later in the pipeline? Could we attached metadata to the remaining loads indicating that it would be legal to widen them? > no, I don't have any concerns about intrinsic way of implementation...

...So now, the intrinsic look like this: void phantom_mem(any_pointer base, any_pointer aggregate, uint64_t maximum_offset) For PR21780, I don't need to use aggregate so it is set to null, but for other similar issues this aggregate parameter might be useful. Thanks, Dinar. On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:52 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 09/13/2017 04:46 PM, Dinar Temirbulatov via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> Hi Michael, >>> >>> I have a case where InstCombine removes a store and your approach would >>> be &g...

...to an aggregate could be restored. Yes, no problem and we could add the aggregate pointer to this new intrinsic and in my particular case I should ignore it, but I am looking now at "speculation_marker" metadata and I am still not sure how to implement it better. Thanks, Dinar. On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Haidl, Michael <michael.haidl at uni-muenster.de> wrote: > Hi Dinar, > > I am asking because I am maintaining an out-of-tree pass which does > exactly what SLP does not. It is a pass designed for GPUs to combine > loads and stores, e.g., when...

On 09/13/2017 04:46 PM, Dinar Temirbulatov via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi Michael, >> I have a case where InstCombine removes a store and your approach would be >> valuable for me if the entire access to an aggregate could be restored. > Yes, no problem and we could add the aggregate pointer to this new > intrins...

...eption. Here is the question: Should we assume that FPENV was initialized with FE_ALL_EXCEPT by default or we could rely for example on "-fno-trapping-math" flag or we could completely ignore the FPU exception issue(see https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6050)? Thanks, Dinar.

...t is suitable for vectorization(see https://reviews.llvm.org/D35139 ). Also, please note that’s the information that is lost when InstCombine kills the last load in the series and there is no way to restore this information later in following passes. Thanks, Dinar.

...uble, double* %arrayidx7, align 8 %vecinit8 = insertelement <4 x double> %vecinit5, double %3, i32 3 %shuffle = shufflevector <4 x double> %vecinit8, <4 x double> %vecinit8, <4 x i32> <i32 3, i32 3, i32 2, i32 2> ret <4 x double> %shuffle } Thanks, Dinar. On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Haidl, Michael <michael.haidl at uni-muenster.de> wrote: > Interesting approach but how do you handle more complex offsets, e.g., when > the pointer is part of an aggregate? Only one offset does not seem enough to > handle generic cases. > > -...

...truction an incorrect IR. So, I just avoid to notice any pointer operation if it is belong to a loop, except those where the the whole chain of operations pointer origin, GEP, Load, Shuffle operation are in the same loop and in the same basic block. Thanks, Dinar. Here is the thread for this issue regarding using metadata: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-July/115730.html

...On the mailing lists * Zachary Turner has sent a [heads-up](http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-September/117418.html) about a slight change to the lit workflow. If you already use `./bin/llvm-lit` in the build dir rather than `utils/lit/lit.py` from source, you should see no changes. * Dinar Temirbulatov has posted an RFC on adding a ['phantom' memory intrinsic](http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-September/117381.html). This would keep track of cases where load operations are removed by passes like InstCombine. * Kyle Butt has posted an RFC [implementing trace-based...

Any idea why this calculates the integer the way it does? irb> ("291.15".to_f * 100.0).to_i => 29114 Thanks, Tom -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to