search for: fixpointing

...out of instcombine, >>>>> ​open questions for me would be >>>>> ​​: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. Since -reassociate isn't a fixed point pass, >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is fixable, fwiw, without fixpointing it. >>>> >>> >>> How? >>> >> >> Depends on specifically which part you would like to know about ;) >> > > ​Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "This is fixable". Did you mean > that we won't somehow need to fixpoint...

...gt;>> ​,​ >>>> out of instcombine, >>>> ​open questions for me would be >>>> ​​: >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. Since -reassociate isn't a fixed point pass, >>>> >>> >>> This is fixable, fwiw, without fixpointing it. >>> >> >> How? >> > > Depends on specifically which part you would like to know about ;) > ​Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "This is fixable". Did you mean that we won't somehow need to fixpoint between instcombine and reassociate, or t...

...t;>> or keep additional ones >>> ​,​ >>> out of instcombine, >>> ​open questions for me would be >>> ​​: >>> >>> >>> 1. Since -reassociate isn't a fixed point pass, >>> >> >> This is fixable, fwiw, without fixpointing it. >> > > How? > Depends on specifically which part you would like to know about ;) > > >> >>> we might need to repeat "-instcombine -reassociate" multiple times to >>> ​fold >>> down to what we want (relating to my comment here &...

...;>>> ​open questions for me would be >>>>>> ​​: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Since -reassociate isn't a fixed point pass, >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is fixable, fwiw, without fixpointing it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> How? >>>> >>> >>> Depends on specifically which part you would like to know about ;) >>> >> >> ​Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "This is fixable". Did you mean >> th...

...s for me would be >>>>>>> ​​: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Since -reassociate isn't a fixed point pass, >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is fixable, fwiw, without fixpointing it. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Depends on specifically which part you would like to know about ;) >>>> >>> >>> ​Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "This is fix...

...> ​open questions for me would be > ​​: > > > 1. Since -reassociate isn't a fixed point > pass, > > > This is fixable, fwiw, without fixpointing it. > > > How? > > > Depends on specifically which part you would like to > know about ;) > > > ​Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "This is > fixable". Did you mean that we w...

...t;>>>>> ​​: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Since -reassociate isn't a fixed point pass, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is fixable, fwiw, without fixpointing it. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> How? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Depends on specifically which part you would like to know about ;) >>>>> >>>> >>>> ​Maybe I misunderstood...

R gurus, Every so often(*) someone asks how to suppress scientific notation in printing, so I thought I'd give it a shot, but I need some help. The formatting decision is made(**) on line 286 of src/main/format.c : if (mF <= *m) { /* IFF it needs less space : "F" (Fixpoint) format */ where mF is the number of characters for "normal" printing and *m is the number

...​: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Since -reassociate isn't a fixed point pass, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is fixable, fwiw, without fixpointing it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Depends on specifically which part you would like to know about ;) >>>>>> >>>>> >&gt...

...starting this discussion.) > > If > ​we will > move > ​reassociation, > or keep additional ones > ​,​ > out of instcombine, > ​open questions for me would be > ​​: > > > 1. Since -reassociate isn't a fixed point pass, > This is fixable, fwiw, without fixpointing it. > we might need to repeat "-instcombine -reassociate" multiple times to > ​fold > down to what we want (relating to my comment here > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D46336#1087082>). I assumed this isn't not what > we want to do > ​? My impression is we don...

...l >> move >> ​reassociation, >> or keep additional ones >> ​,​ >> out of instcombine, >> ​open questions for me would be >> ​​: >> >> >> 1. Since -reassociate isn't a fixed point pass, >> > > This is fixable, fwiw, without fixpointing it. > How? > >> we might need to repeat "-instcombine -reassociate" multiple times to >> ​fold >> down to what we want (relating to my comment here >> <https://reviews.llvm.org/D46336#1087082>). I assumed this isn't not >> what we want to...

Hi all, My name is Fahad Nayyar. I am an undergraduate student from India. I am interested to participate in GSOC under the project “Improve inter-procedural analyses and optimizations”. I have been using LLVM for the past 8 months. I have written various intra-procedural analysis in LLVM as FunctionPass for my course projects and research projects. But I’ve not contributed to the LLVM

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Nirav Davé <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > In any case, the issue appears to be that llvm doesn't realize that the > target address is resolved and erroneously applies branch relaxation to the > jump. I don't know why a linker private symbol would make a difference. > Relaxation is the process of *shortening* jumps that can be

Hi Fahad, > > Improve dynamic memory related capabilities of Attributor. For example > Improve HeapToStackConversions. Maybe such deductions can help safety > (dis)provers. For example, can we improve the use-after-free bug detection > using some attributes? > Stefan should know more about H2S. Regarding the use-after-free, I don't > think there's currently any plans

After I spend some time working with the function attribute* deduction pass** [1,3], I would like to propose a "proper" organization***. Why? Because we do not derive nearly as many attributes as we could****, while we do maintain various (separate and diffently organized) "data-flow-like analyses" to do so. What else? I propose a single optimistic data-flow

Hi Farad, > I tried to do this for the NoUnwind attribute Hmm, I don't have experience with this attribute but it seems like a good starting point since it doesn't do much. First of all, be sure that you run with: opt -passes=attributor -attributor-disable=false This uses the new pass manager which is another discussion. Now, to the point: If you open nounwind.ll, it has a bunch of

I thought jumps start short and relaxation widens them as needed until fixpoint. So relax-all causes them all to be widened unconditionally. On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Nirav Davé <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > wrote: > >> In any case, the issue appears to be that

( ​I came across this issue in the context of D46336 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D46336>. ​ ​ Thanks, Sanjay, for starting this discussion.) If ​we will move ​reassociation, or keep additional ones ​,​ out of instcombine, ​open questions for me would be ​​: 1. Since -reassociate isn't a fixed point pass, we might need to repeat "-instcombine -reassociate" multiple times to

Hello, I had a look at the global variable optimizer. In my opinion it handles a few special cases, when global variables can be replaced by local variables or be removed completely. Basically I think that this problem could be solved with an interprocedural live value analysis for global variables more generally. An assignment to a global variable can be removed, if this global variable is dead

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > I thought jumps start short and relaxation widens them as needed until > fixpoint. So relax-all causes them all to be widened unconditionally. > My mistake, you're right. I've been reading that code for years and assuming that it goes large-to-small, but I guess the process is the same