Displaying 20 results from an estimated 55 matches for "fixpoints".
Did you mean:
fixpoint
2018 May 10
2
more reassociation in IR
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:24 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:15 AM
2018 May 10
0
more reassociation in IR
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:24 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:15 AM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:38 AM,
2018 May 10
2
more reassociation in IR
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:15 AM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> (
>>> I came across this issue in
2018 May 11
0
more reassociation in IR
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:49 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:24 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Hiroshi
2018 May 12
3
more reassociation in IR
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:49 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:24
2018 May 12
0
more reassociation in IR
On 05/11/2018 08:40 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com
> <mailto:yamauchi at google.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:49 PM Daniel Berlin
> <dberlin at dberlin.org <mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, May
2018 May 14
3
more reassociation in IR
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:20 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>
> On 05/11/2018 08:40 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:49 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>
>> wrote:
>>
2003 May 02
2
Suppressing Scientific Notation
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
2018 May 18
0
more reassociation in IR
I mentioned this earlier in the thread - I would like to see something like
D41574 in the optimizer. It's optimizing code that no other pass does
currently, and I don't see any other near-term proposal that gets us those
optimizations.
Omer, can you rebase that to trunk? I think a header has moved, so it
doesn't build as-is. I'd like to know if it can catch the cases in D45842.
If
2018 May 08
2
more reassociation in IR
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> (
> 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,
2018 May 09
0
more reassociation in IR
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:15 AM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> (
>> I came across this issue in the context of
>> D46336 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D46336>.
>>
>> Thanks, Sanjay, for starting this
2020 Mar 13
3
[GSOC] "Project: Improve inter-procedural analyses and optimisations"
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
2016 Jun 29
2
x86: How to Force 2-byte `jmp` instruction in lowering
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
2020 Mar 14
3
[GSOC] "Project: Improve inter-procedural analyses and optimisations"
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
2018 Aug 23
2
[RFC] "Properly" Derive Function/Argument/Parameter Attributes
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
2020 Mar 16
3
[GSOC] "Project: Improve inter-procedural analyses and optimisations"
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
2016 Jun 29
0
x86: How to Force 2-byte `jmp` instruction in lowering
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
2018 May 08
0
more reassociation in IR
(
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
2010 Nov 08
1
[LLVMdev] interprocedural live value analysis
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
2016 Jun 29
1
x86: How to Force 2-byte `jmp` instruction in lowering
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