search for: haicheng

Thank you, Adam. It passes all the benchmarks I have. Haicheng From: anemet at apple.com [mailto:anemet at apple.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 7:17 PM To: Haicheng Wu; Eric Christopher; Benjamin Kramer Cc: llvm-dev Subject: Re: Regression in SPEC2006/gcc caused by LoopLoadElimination I’ve committed the fix in r263058. Haicheng, Eric/Benjamin,...

> On Mar 7, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com> wrote: > > Hi Haicheng, > > Sorry about the breakage. I reverted it in r262839. > > I will try to reproduce it locally. Please don’t blow away your directories yet in case I need further help. OK, I managed to reproduce this locally. Should be able to make progress from here without further help from yo...

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com> wrote: > I’ve committed the fix in r263058. Haicheng, Eric/Benjamin, can you guys > please give it a test with your codebase. (You need to enable the pass with > -mllvm -enable-loop-load-elim.) The miscompilation I was seeing is gone now, too. Thanks! > On Mar 7, 2016, at 11:05 PM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com> wrote: > > &...

...adElimination (r262250) causes SPEC2006/gcc generate wrong result (166.s) in AArch64 when running with *ref* data set. The error happens when I use either "-Ofast -flto -fuse-ld=gold" or "-O3 -fno-strict-aliasing". Please let me know if you need more information. Best, Haicheng -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160307/0a13a112/attachment.html>

...ch is caused VT-d fault on UHCI. err 3, Dom0 complains disk errors while creating HVM guests. The culprit would be changeset 19054 "x86_64: Remove statically-partitioned Xen heap.". Detailed error logs can be found via BZ#, http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1409. -haicheng _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

...On 03/03/2016 02:36 PM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev wrote: > SCEV should be able to easily prove that j is positive here. I'm not > sure where the right place to use that information would be in this > case. Sanjoy, can you comment? > > Philip > > On 03/03/2016 02:06 PM, Haicheng Wu wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I have a simple loop like below >> >> int I, j; >> >> for (j = n; j > 1; j = i) { >> >> i = j / 2; >> >> } >> >> The signed division can be safely turned into a single shift since...

...adds. The reassociation pass first swaps a and c when checking the second add, and then swaps a and d when checking the third add. The transformed code looks like . X=c+b . Y=X+d . Z=Y+a a is pushed all the way down to the bottom and its live range is much larger now. Best, Haicheng -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151001/79c5f2a7/attachment.html>

Hi, On 02/10/2016 01:23 AM, haicheng at codeaurora.org wrote: > Thank you, Mikael. I can reproduce what you saw and am looking into it. Great! > Just curious, why do you run loop-deletion before licm and loop-idiom? As part of our internal testing we use Csmith to generate C-programs and then we run the compiler with random...

...son <arnaud.degrandmaison at arm.com> wrote: > > +CC llvm-dev > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Arnaud A. de Grandmaison [mailto:arnaud.degrandmaison at arm.com] >> Sent: 20 November 2015 15:28 >> To: 'qcolombet at apple.com' >> Cc: 'haicheng at codeaurora.org' >> Subject: RE: [llvm-dev] [AArch64] bug in shrink-wrapping >> >> Now with memory leak addressed. >> >> Cheers, >> Arnaud >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Arnaud A. de Grandmaison >> [mailto:arnau...

Hi Quentin, After shrink-wrapping was enabled as default on AArch64, llc has a seg fault when compiling the attached .ll file on AArch64. My command is llc -mcpu=cortex-a57 bug.ll Best, Haicheng -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bug.ll Type: application/octet-stream Size: 8983 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151120/9fb7aa5b/attachment.obj>

...d up and call an undo routine based on a cost model. I think there is time to do something longer term. This particular instance can only be an issue under -fast-math. Cheers Gerolf > On Oct 1, 2015, at 9:27 AM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Haicheng, > > We need to prevent the transform if it causes spilling, but I'm not sure yet what mechanism/heuristic we can use to do that. > Can you file a bug report with a reduced test case? > > Thanks! > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Haicheng Wu <haicheng at codeaurora....

Hi Haicheng, Originally I ran into this on our out-of-tree target but I managed to reproduce the crash on X86 as well now: build-all/bin/opt -S -sroa -loop-rotate -loop-deletion -licm -loop-idiom ../llvm/bugpoint-reduced-simplified.i8+.ll gives: While deleting: void % An asserting value handle still po...

...0 0 0 :reboot_fc6_64_g32e 1 1 0 0 0 :boot_smp_acpi_win2k_64_ 1 1 0 0 0 ===================================================================== Total 74 65 9 0 0 -- haicheng _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

...i = j / 2; } The signed division can be safely turned into a single shift since j is known to be positive from the loop guard. LLVM currently cannot find out j is positive and compiles the above division into 3 instructions. Any thoughts on where to fix this? Thank you in advance, Haicheng -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160303/4477e92d/attachment.html>

...0 1 0 0 :boot_rhel5u1_64_g64 1 1 0 0 0 :kb_nightly_64_g64 1 1 0 0 0 ===================================================================== Total 48 28 18 2 0 -- haicheng _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

...0 0 0 :reboot_fc6_64_g32e 1 1 0 0 0 :boot_smp_acpi_win2k_64_ 1 1 0 0 0 ===================================================================== Total 63 62 0 0 1 -- haicheng _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

...make[3]: Leaving directory `/xen-unstable/tools/firmware'' make[2]: *** [all] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory `/xen-unstable/tools/firmware'' make[1]: *** [subdir-all-firmware] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/xen-unstable/tools'' make: *** [subdirs-all] Error 2 -- haicheng _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

...opose to factor out the relevant code from BranchFolding into a utility, and call it from BlockPlacement whenever the layout is changed. It is similar to D18226 and D18411 which factor tail duplication into a utility and call it from BlockPlacement. Any thoughts, advice, or comments? Best, Haicheng

Hello all, please tell me, how can I be sure that my Xen installation is built with Intel VT-d support? Something like xm info | grep -i KEY-REGULAR-EXPRESSION xm dmesg | grep -i KEY-REGULAR-EXPRESSION What a line should I look for? And if my installation was really built with VT-d support, how can I be sure, that Xen has successfully initialized VT-d hardware? I have read [1] and the

...te one guest, then hotplug attach one NIC to guest, guest can not get IP address via dhcp, guest qemu log shows "libpci read error. No emulation ". Here is the bug entry: One 32e, hotplug attaching VT-d NIC to guest failed. http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1316. -- haicheng _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel