search for: esie

Hi, I have run into the following strange behavior and wanted to ask for some advice. For the C program below, function sum() gets inlined in foo() but the code generated looks very suboptimal (the code is an extract from a larger program). Below I show the 32-bit x86 assembly as produced by the demo page on the llvm home page ("Output A"). As you can see from the assembly, after

I noticed that fourinarow is one of the programs in which LLVM is much slower than GCC, so I decided to take a look and see why that is so. The program has many loops that look like this: #define ROWS 6 #define COLS 7 void init_board(char b[COLS][ROWS+1]) { int i,j; for (i=0;i<COLS;i++) for (j=0;j<ROWS;j++) b[i][j]='.';

I don't know much about this, but maybe -mllvm -unroll-count=1 can be used as a workaround? /Patrik Hägglund -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Brent Walker Sent: den 28 mars 2012 03:18 To: llvmdev Subject: [LLVMdev] Suboptimal code due to excessive spilling Hi, I have run into the following strange behavior

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Jeff Cohen wrote: > I noticed that fourinarow is one of the programs in which LLVM is much slower > than GCC, so I decided to take a look and see why that is so. The program > has many loops that look like this: > > #define ROWS 6 > #define COLS 7 > > void init_board(char b[COLS][ROWS+1]) > { > int i,j; > > for

Sorry, I thought I was running selection dag isel but I screwed up when trying out the really big array. You're right, it does clean it up except for the multiplication. So LoopStrengthReduce is not ready for prime time and doesn't actually get used? I might consider whipping it into shape. Does it still have to handle getelementptr in its full generality? Chris Lattner wrote:

Hi all, I just wanted to share a project I''ve been working on now for a few months. It''s still far from complete, but has already been very useful for me and my coworkers. I''m calling it mongrel-esi. ESI stands for Edge Side Include. The specs live here, http://www.w3.org/TR/esi-lang. I currently only have support for <esi:include, <esi:try,

At first I thought, I was dealing with the known EBIOS/CBIOS-problem. The symptom was exactly the same (hangs at ...EBIOS). As 3.10-pre8 and 3.10-pre9, in contrary what was mentioned in the ML, did not bring any improvement, I looked deeper into what could be my specific problem. I found out that the program just halted at 'cmp [esi],edx' (line 658; ldlinux.asm 3.10-pre9)! By replacing

When I increased COLS to the point where the loop could no longer be unrolled, the selection dag code generator generated effectively the same code as the default X86 code generator. Lots of redundant imul/movl/addl sequences. It can't clean it up either. Only unrolling all nested loops permits it to be optimized away, regardless of code generator. Jeff Cohen wrote: > I noticed

I don't know how to file a PR, but I have a patch (see below), that should work regardless of abi differences, since it relies on the compiler to do the though job. void X86CompilationCallback_SSE(void) { char * SAVEBUF= (char*) alloca(64+12); // alloca is 16byte aligned asm volatile ( "movl %%eax,(%0)\n" "movl %%edx,4(%0)\n" // Save EAX/EDX/ECX

I submitted the problem report to clang's bugzilla but no one seems to care so I have to send it to the mailing list. clang 3.7 svn (trunk 229055 as the time I was to report this problem) generates slower code than 3.5 (Apple LLVM version 6.0 (clang-600.0.56) (based on LLVM 3.5svn)) for the following code. It is a "8 queens puzzle" solver written as an educational example. As

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Jeff Cohen wrote: > Sorry, I thought I was running selection dag isel but I screwed up when > trying out the really big array. You're right, it does clean it up except > for the multiplication. > > So LoopStrengthReduce is not ready for prime time and doesn't actually get > used? I don't know what the status of it is. You could try it out,

The regressions in the performance of generated code, introduced by the llvm 3.6 release, don't seem to be limited to this 8 queens puzzle" solver test case. See... http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=llvm-clang-3.5-3.6-rc1&num=1 where a bit hit in the performance of the Sparse Matrix Multiply test of the SciMark v2.0 benchmark was observed as well as others.

Using the SciMark 2.0 code from http://math.nist.gov/scimark2/scimark2_1c.zip compiled with the same... make CFLAGS="-O3 -march=native" I am able to reproduce the 22% performance regression in the run time of the Sparse matmult benchmark. For 10 runs of the scimark2 benechmark, I get 998.439+/-0.4828 with the release llvm clang 3.5.1 compiler and 1217.363+/-1.1004 for the current

I found a something that I quite not understand when compiling a common piece of code using the -Os flags. I found it while testing my own backend but then I got deeper and found that at least the x86 is affected as well. This is the referred code: char pp[3]; char *scscx = pp; int tst( char i, char j, char k ) { scscx[0] = i; scscx[1] = j; scscx[2] = k; return 0; } The above gets

Hi @ll, while clang/LLVM recognizes common bit-twiddling idioms/expressions like unsigned int rotate(unsigned int x, unsigned int n) { return (x << n) | (x >> (32 - n)); } and typically generates "rotate" machine instructions for this expression, it fails to recognize other also common bit-twiddling idioms/expressions. The standard IEEE CRC-32 for "big

On Apr 27, 2007, at 3:50 PM, David Greene wrote: > The saga continues. > > I've been tracking the interface changes and merging them with > the refactoring work I'm doing. I got as far as building stage3 > of llvm-gcc but the object files from stage2 and stage3 differ: > > > warning: ./cc1-checksum.o differs > warning: ./cc1plus-checksum.o differs > >

Hi everyone, This happens every time I start winedbg, no matter what program I want to debug. It's ubuntu feisty fawn and I have built wine from sources. user@machine:~$ winedbg "C:\Program Files\Diablo II\Diablo II.exe" WineDbg starting on pid 000a wine: Unhandled page fault on read access to 0x00000000 at address 0xb7d5cc23 (thread 0009), starting debugger... Unhandled exception:

"Sanjay Patel" <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > IIUC, you want to use x86-specific bit-hacks (sbb masking) in cases like > this: > unsigned int foo(unsigned int crc) { > if (crc & 0x80000000) > crc <<= 1, crc ^= 0xEDB88320; > else > crc <<= 1; > return crc; > } To document this for x86 too: rewrite the function

Compile the following functions with "-O3 -target i386-win32" (see <https://godbolt.org/z/exmjWY>): __int64 __fastcall div(__int64 foo, __int64 bar) { return foo / bar; } On the left the generated code; on the right the expected, properly optimised code: push dword ptr [esp + 16] | push dword ptr [esp + 16] | push dword ptr [esp + 16] |

Hi all, I'm trying to generate code containing an ordered float compare for equality, and select. The resulting code however has an unordered compare and some Boolean logic that I think could be eliminated. In C syntax the code looks like this: float x, y; int a, b, c if(x == y) // Rotate the integers { int t; t = a; a = b;