search for: hanshq

...g> Sent: 07 October 2019 09:13 To: Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com> Cc: Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de>; Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Kruse, Michael <michael.kruse at anl.gov>; hans at hanshq.net <hans at hanshq.net> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] vectorize.enable Sorry for coming late to this thread, I was out a few days. I wasn't familiar with this pragma before, but if the intended meaning is indeed "vectorize this" and not "if vectorizing, use this width", t...

...t lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Sent: 03 October 2019 00:18 To: Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Kruse, Michael <michael.kruse at anl.gov>; hans at hanshq.net <hans at hanshq.net> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] vectorize.enable On 10/2/19 5:31 PM, Michael Kruse wrote: > Am Mi., 2. Okt. 2019 um 15:56 Uhr schrieb Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov>: >>> It's done by the WarnMissedTransformation and just looks for >>> tran...

...ror in the > clang driver preventing crtfastmath.o from linking when -Ofast is used > without -ffast-math > > LLVM: > 1. r205067 - Akira Hatanaka <ahatanaka at apple.com> - [x86] Fix printing of > register operands with q modifier > 2. r203581 - Hans Wennborg <hans at hanshq.net> - X86: Don't generate 64-bit > movd after cmpneqsd in 32-bit mode (PR19059) > 3. r203146 - Reid Kleckner <reid at kleckner.net> - MS asm: The initial dot in > struct access is optional > 4. r202774 - Reid Kleckner <reid at kleckner.net> - MC: Fix Intel assembly &...

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at hanshq.net> wrote: > > > The reason is that it is unsure whether the null pointer which is passed in > the call to @foo may alias with %t. Obviously, a null pointer doesn't alias > with anything, because it's not legal to read or write through it (right?). I don't remember...

This is the first patch I've sent to this project. Please be gentle :) LLVM fails to remove the dead load in the following code when running $./llvm-as -o - test.ll | ./opt -O3 -o - | ./llvm-dis -o - %t = type { i32 } declare void @foo(i8*) define void @f(%t* noalias nocapture %stuff ) { %p = getelementptr inbounds %t* %stuff, i32 0, i32 0 %before = load i32* %p call void

[ Original posting see [1] ] >From [1]: ... Added: llvm/tags/RELEASE_380/rc3/ (props changed) - copied from r261685, llvm/branches/release_38/ ... The LLVM Git repositories have no "rc3" tag in "release_38" branch (as an example llvm.git#release_38 see [2]). Who is responsible for that or maybe better... can you activate the responsible(s)? Helpful is to add

Am Mi., 2. Okt. 2019 um 15:56 Uhr schrieb Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov>: > > It's done by the WarnMissedTransformation and just looks for > > transformation metadata that is still in the IR after all passes that > > should have transformed them have ran. That is, it does not know why > > it is still there -- it could be because the LoopVectorize pass is not

...; > > without -ffast-math > > > > > > LLVM: > > > 1. r205067 - Akira Hatanaka <ahatanaka at apple.com <javascript:;>> - > > [x86] Fix printing of > > > register operands with q modifier > > > 2. r203581 - Hans Wennborg <hans at hanshq.net <javascript:;>> - X86: > > Don't generate 64-bit > > > movd after cmpneqsd in 32-bit mode (PR19059) > > > 3. r203146 - Reid Kleckner <reid at kleckner.net <javascript:;>> - MS asm: > > The initial dot in > > > struct access is opti...

I'm writing a ModulePass that does work on a subset of the functions in a module. I would like to get the LoopInfo for the functions that it works with. Is there some way to do this? As I understand, only a FunctionPass can register LoopInfo as a required analysis. Hans

...to:ahmed.bougacha at gmail.com> > chandlerc at gmail.com <mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com> > craig.topper at gmail.com <mailto:craig.topper at gmail.com> > dan at su-root.co.uk <mailto:dan at su-root.co.uk> > eric at efcs.ca <mailto:eric at efcs.ca> > hans at hanshq.net <mailto:hans at hanshq.net> > juergen at ributzka.de <mailto:juergen at ributzka.de> > lenny at colorado.edu <mailto:lenny at colorado.edu> > mail at justinbogner.com <mailto:mail at justinbogner.com> > matze at braunis.de <mailto:matze at braunis.de> &...

Er... Sending this to the list instead of the parent... On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at hanshq.net> wrote: > Yesterday I realised that if a Function has the calling convention set > to "fast", then it is a bad idea to call it through the function pointer > one gets from ExecutionEngine::getPointerToFunction(). > > The problem is that when calling it from my C++ pr...

...log > --pretty=format:"%ae" lib/Fuzzer | egrep -v "chromium|apple|google" | sort > | uniq > aaron at aaronballman.com > ahmed.bougacha at gmail.com > chandlerc at gmail.com > craig.topper at gmail.com > dan at su-root.co.uk > eric at efcs.ca > hans at hanshq.net > juergen at ributzka.de > lenny at colorado.edu > mail at justinbogner.com > matze at braunis.de > mgrang at codeaurora.org > nicholas at mxc.ca > peter at pcc.me.uk > rafael.espindola at gmail.com > richard-llvm at metafoo.co.uk > sanjoy at playingwithpointers.co...

Sorry, I admit my e-mail was a bit unclear. Here is an example: declare void @foo() define void @f(i32* noalias %p) { store i32 1, i32* %p; <-- This is dead call void @foo() store i32 2, i32 *%p ret void } When run through ./llvm-as test.ll -o - | ./opt -O3 -S the dead store is not removed by the DSE pass. (The call to @foo is there to prevent InstCombine

...e? (I >> think this would probably be easy.) >> > > I suppose the monorepo has annotated tags. > > $ git describe RELEASE_701/rc1^ > RELEASE_700/final-20-gd0540f76dd4f > > $ git show RELEASE_700/final > tag RELEASE_700/final > Tagger: Hans Wennborg <hans at hanshq.net> > Date: Mon Sep 17 20:38:10 2018 > > Creating release candidate final from release_700 branch > > ...Are they not what you want? > No, I want git-describe to be usable on master. (Your example describes a change to the release branch.) > > > >> >>...

...so. == Prototype == A prototype/proof of concept of this feature has been implemented here: https://github.com/pcc/llvm-project/tree/lld-module-symbols There is a test app in the test-progs/app directory that demonstrates the feature on Android with a simple hello world app (based on https://www.hanshq.net/command-line-android.html ). I have successfully tested debugging the loadable partition with gdb (e.g. setting breakpoints and printing globals), but getting unwinding working will need a bit more work. Note that the feature as exposed by the prototype is different from what I'm proposing...

...roof of concept of this feature has been implemented here: >> https://github.com/pcc/llvm-project/tree/lld-module-symbols >> There is a test app in the test-progs/app directory that demonstrates the >> feature on Android with a simple hello world app (based on >> https://www.hanshq.net/command-line-android.html ). I have successfully >> tested debugging the loadable partition with gdb (e.g. setting breakpoints >> and printing globals), but getting unwinding working will need a bit more >> work. >> >> Note that the feature as exposed by the protot...

On Nov 4, 2009, at 7:21 AM, Hans Wennborg wrote: > Re-posting with better-looking code. Thanks, do you have a testcase showing what this does? -Chris > > Hans Wennborg wrote: >> The attached patch makes DeadStoreElimination able to remove stores >> in store-store dependencies when the operand types are equal, even >> if there is no TargetData available. >>

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:54 AM, George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 12, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:30 AM, George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com> > wrote: > >> >> On Jul 12, 2017, at 11:01 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:

Hi James, I've started working with the prototype layout in context of Google's internal infrastructure. With deep apologies, I have a (very late, I know) pair of requests that have only recently solidified for me. 1. Could you add annotated tags after the cut point of each release? (I think this would probably be easy.) 2. Could you mark branch/tag operations somehow other than a

Hi, I have just tagged the first release candidate for the 3.4.1 release, so testers may begin testing. Please refer to http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseProcess.html for information on how to validate a release. If you have any questions or need something clarified, just email the list. For the 3.4.1 release we want to compare test results against 3.4-final. I have added support to the