search for: instructiobn

...elyExecute() always returns false for Call instructions. > This has actual performance implications, because loop-invariant code motion makes this check, and will never hoist instructions that are not safe to speculatively execute. LICM::canSinkOrHoistInst has special handling for hoisting Call Instructiobns. It looks like readonly functions should be hoisted. Do you have test cases which fail ? Thanks, Nadav -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120908/7cbd3fee/attachment.html>

...ll >> instructions. >> This has actual performance implications, because loop-invariant code motion >> makes this check, and will never hoist instructions that are not safe to >> speculatively execute. > > LICM::canSinkOrHoistInst has special handling for hoisting Call Instructiobns. > It looks like readonly functions should be hoisted. Do you have test cases > which fail ? a readonly/readnone function may contain divide by zero. Ciao, Duncan.

Hello, Currently, llvm::isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute() always returns false for Call instructions. This has actual performance implications, because loop-invariant code motion makes this check, and will never hoist instructions that are not safe to speculatively execute. Unfortunately, there is currently no way to signal to LICM that a function is safe to speculatively execute. The