Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "efficicient".
Did you mean:
efficient
2011 Mar 14
1
[LLVMdev] IndVarSimplify too aggressive ?
...digging thru mail archives & bugzilla, it seems fixing properly this issue would require a major change in the selectionDAG code --- to have it operate on a per function basis instead of per basic-block.
This however, does not seem to be the only issue. The following C code does not produce an efficicient assembly sequence either.
extern void f(unsigned long long v);
void test2()
{
for (unsigned i=0; i<512; i++)
f(i);
}
The resulting .ll out of clang looks reasonnable (with and without the patch), but the arm assembly output looks ugly, though marginally better with my patch : the induct...
2011 Mar 13
0
[LLVMdev] IndVarSimplify too aggressive ?
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Arnaud Allard de Grandmaison
<Arnaud.AllardDeGrandMaison at dibcom.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The IndVarSimplify pass seems to be too aggressive when it enlarge the induction variable type ; this can pessimize the generated code when the new induction variable size is not natively supported by the target. This is probably not an issue for x86_64,
2011 Mar 13
7
[LLVMdev] IndVarSimplify too aggressive ?
Hi all,
The IndVarSimplify pass seems to be too aggressive when it enlarge the induction variable type ; this can pessimize the generated code when the new induction variable size is not natively supported by the target. This is probably not an issue for x86_64, which supports natively all types, but it is a real one for several embedded targets, with very few native types.
I attached a patch to