search for: instcombines

Hello, this mail is to raise awareness of https://reviews.llvm.org/D81728, which is substantial enough of a conceptual change that it should probably at least be mentioned in llvm-dev. InstCombine has dealt with target-specific intrinsics for a long time, since its fix-point iteration is arguably the right place to do so. A downside is that there's a pull to add an increasing amount of code

[adding llvm-dev for wider audience] On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> > wrote: > >> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> >> wrote: >> > Is "VRP" (value range

I’m taking a first look at InstCombine performance. I picked up the caching patch and ran a few experiments on one of our larger C++ apps. The size of the *.0.2.internalize.bc no-debug IR is ~ 30M. Here are my observations so far. Interestingly, caching produced a slight but measurable performance degradation of -O3 compile time. InstCombine takes about 35% of total execution time, of which ~20%

> On Apr 13, 2017, at 7:43 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Mikulin, Dmitry > <dmitry.mikulin at sony.com> wrote: >> I’m taking a first look at InstCombine performance. I picked up the caching patch and ran a few experiments on one of our larger C++ apps. The size of the *.0.2.internalize.bc no-debug IR is ~ 30M.

> If we don't care about trying to optimize out overflow checks in > InstCombine, I'd go with moving the complexity to CGP. I think instcombine should optimize out overflow checks (as it does today) without introducing _with_overflow calls. Are there reasons why such an approach would not work? > However, I think > InstCombine is doing the right thing here by forming these.

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Mikulin, Dmitry <dmitry.mikulin at sony.com> wrote: > >>> Is this a run with debug info? i.e. are you passing -g to the per-TU >>> pipeline? I'm inclined to think this is mostly an additive effect >>> adding matchers here and there that don't really hurt small testcases >>> but we pay the debt over time (in

Just thinking out loud…. I’m really not familiar with the vast majority of what instcombine does, so please excuse me if my naiveté is too obvious. I can’t help but notice all of the uses of ‘and’ in Daniel B’s description of what instcombine is right now: > On Sep 8, 2017, at 11:27 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > FWIW, Before getting to

Hi All, I finally got around to cleaning up my proposal to merge `SimplifyLibCalls` into `InstCombiner`. There is still an open question or two and I am sure there are parts that could be better specified, but this is good enough to discuss. Feedback is most welcome. Abstract ======== This proposal is an attack plan for PR11895 [1]. Currently within LLVM we have two passes that are used to

On 10 August 2013 15:32, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > Hi Jakob, > > Thanks for creating this interesting proposal. > Let me just comment on this part: > > >>> What might be better is to put some abstract interface between >>> instcombine and the IR, so that instcombine can be run on these pseudo-MIs >>> as well as on IR. >>

On 09/11/2017 10:50 AM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Daniel Neilson via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > > Just thinking out loud…. I’m really not familiar with the vast > majority of what instcombine does, so please excuse me if my > naiveté is too

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: >>

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:40 AM, Pete Cooper <peter_cooper at apple.com> wrote: > Hi lx, Philip > > I've seen an instcombine which helps with this situation. It fires when > the function types on both sides of the bitcast have the same number of > operands and compatible types. It then adds bitcasts on the arguments and > removes the one on the called function. > It

Thanks a lot for the clarification! So if my input .ll is not expected to contain any of the above mentioned weird corner cases, but, after -instcombine, ends up containing "undef" values, then it must be that the input .ll has bugs unknown to me, right? Best Regards, Paul On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote: > On 11 June 2014 12:26,

InstCombine says in its getAnalysisUsage that it preserves the CFG, but for the 4th argument in its INITIALIZE_PASS call, it says false, which I believe corresponds to whether it preserves the CFG. Is this a mistake, or is there deeper meaning here? InstructionCombining.cpp:73-82 char InstCombiner::ID = 0; INITIALIZE_PASS(InstCombiner, "instcombine", "Combine

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

Sanjay, I'm looking at some missed optimizations caused by D70246. Here's a test case: define <4 x float> @f(i32 %t32, <4 x float>* %t24) { .entry: %t43 = insertelement <3 x i32> undef, i32 %t32, i32 2 %t44 = bitcast <3 x i32> %t43 to <3 x float> %t45 = shufflevector <3 x float> %t44, <3 x float> undef, <4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 undef,

On 11 Sep 2017, at 21:32, Sean Silva via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > As a data point for this, I did a quick walkthrough of the top-level of instcombine, and one thing that stuck out to me is that it tries to sink instructions in certain "easy" scenarios. That doesn't fit a graph rewriting system. The sinking in instcombine is not always a win. We

Hi Jakob, Thanks for creating this interesting proposal. Let me just comment on this part: >> What might be better is to put some abstract interface between >> instcombine and the IR, so that instcombine can be run on these >> pseudo-MIs as well as on IR. > > I like the idea of sharing code between IR and MI passes through an > abstract interface. I think that later

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

Hi Fellows, If a .ll file contains no "undef"'s, does it necessarily mean that every value is properly initialized before use in the IR? What confuses me is that I notice that -instcombine can introduce "undef" to the previously undef-clean .ll file ... is it always safe to use -instcombine as one of the preprocessing pass? Thanks. Best, Paul -------------- next