search for: invariably

> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Hal Finkel via llvm-dev > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] invariant.load metadata semantics > Alternatively, we might phrase this as: The optimizer may assume that all values loaded > from a location, where any of the loads are tagged with !invariant.load, are identical. This would seem to limit the usefulness of the

Hello everyone, I'm starting a new thread, as a follow-up to several older ones, on invariants in LLVM. Fundamentally, invariants are conditions that the optimizer is allowed to assume will be valid during the execution of the program. Many other compilers support a concept like this, MSVC's __assume, for example. GCC has a builtin called __builtin_assume_aligned which also neatly falls

Hi Piotr, I think makes sense. Modulo bitcasts, the invariant is identified by a particular pointer SSA value. Given that you can't sensibly have two nonequivalent invariants associated with the same pointer SSA value simultaneously, there's no need to also identify the invariant with a metadata string as well. When we need a new "identifier" for the pointed-to value, we

> On Dec 1, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > (Spawning a separate subthread off the 'Optimization hints for "constant" loads' discussion for a related question. ) > > Looking at TBAA again, I was reminded that TBAA also contains a third field which indicates that "meaning pointsToConstantMemory should return

On 10/21/2014 01:44 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: >> On Oct 21, 2014, at 11:46 AM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: >> >> Thank you for the explanation, I think I misunderstood your solution >> initially. Is it accurate to say: by making the definition of the >> source pointer of an !invariant load control (or data) dependent on >> some

Hi all, I would like to propose a new way clang would decorate vtable loads in order to handle devirtualization better. I've added *llvm-dev* also, because this can start a discussion about changing invariant.group to just invariant. PDF version of this RFC can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B72TmzNsY6Z8ZmpOUnB5dDZfSFU/view?usp=sharing Background: Initial old design:

On 12/01/2014 02:42 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > >> On Dec 1, 2014, at 2:21 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com >> <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: >> >> >> On 12/01/2014 11:14 AM, Andrew Trick wrote: >>> >>>> On Oct 21, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Philip Reames >>>> <listmail at philipreames.com

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "LLVM Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com>, "Andrew Trick" <atrick at apple.com>, "Richard Smith" > <richard at

2017-01-26 3:28 GMT+01:00 Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>: > On 25 January 2017 at 15:03, Hal Finkel via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi Piotr, >> >> I think makes sense. Modulo bitcasts, the invariant is identified by a >> particular pointer SSA value. Given that you can't sensibly have two >> nonequivalent

On 12/01/2014 11:14 AM, Andrew Trick wrote: > >> On Oct 21, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com >> <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: >> >> Sanjoy made a good point. We don't actually need a new variant of >> "invariant.start". Simply using an invariant.start with no uses >> gives us a notion

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Kenneth Uildriks wrote: >>> >>> You're right, I hadn't thought this through. The whole point of making >>> them >>> local is to say that "I'm sure these callees won't modify that memory" >>> regardless of what functions actually get called,

Thank you for the explanation, I think I misunderstood your solution initially. Is it accurate to say: by making the definition of the source pointer of an !invariant load control (or data) dependent on some initialization event, you can effectively separate the initialization event (where the location is not invariant) and the rest of the execution (where the location is invariant). This

2017-01-26 15:41 GMT+01:00 Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>: > > On 01/26/2017 06:44 AM, Piotr Padlewski wrote: > > > > 2017-01-26 3:28 GMT+01:00 Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>: > >> On 25 January 2017 at 15:03, Hal Finkel via cfe-dev < >> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Piotr, >>> >>> I think

> On Mar 20, 2015, at 8:02 PM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> wrote: > > > Yes, this is what I was proposing above and here ;): > Thanks Adam it’s for confirming J NP :). > > > No, not hasLoopInvariantStore but hasAccessToLoopInvariantAddress. > Its only for invariant stores[not loads], Using ‘hasLoopInvariantStore’ (or a name with invariant store)

Hi folks, here is a link to the proposal that we've been working on lately: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16GVtCpzK8sIHNc2qZz6RN8amICNBt vjWUod2SujZVEo/edit?usp=sharing But for the record, I also paste it here. Feedback will be really appreciated!

On 01/28/2017 10:36 AM, Piotr Padlewski wrote: > > > 2017-01-26 15:41 GMT+01:00 Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov > <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>>: > > > On 01/26/2017 06:44 AM, Piotr Padlewski wrote: >> >> >> 2017-01-26 3:28 GMT+01:00 Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk >> <mailto:richard at metafoo.co.uk>>: >>

>From /xen-unstable.hg/xen/arch/x86/cpu/intel.c if ((c->x86 == 0xf && c->x86_model >= 0x03) || (c->x86 == 0x6 && c->x86_model >= 0x0e)) set_bit(X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC, c->x86_capability); if (cpuid_edx(0x80000007) & (1u<<8)) { set_bit(X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC, c->x86_capability); set_bit(X86_FEATURE_NONSTOP_TSC,

Sanjoy, can you clarify this bit about JVM array lengths? Presumably the same pointer can point to two arrays of different lengths during a program's execution. Does this mean that you're relying on invariant.load having function scope? That is, correctness depends on the pointer not being reused for an array of a different length between the first invariant load of that array length in

> On Mar 19, 2015, at 9:46 PM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> wrote: > > Thanks Adam for your reply. > > From: Adam Nemet [mailto:anemet at apple.com <mailto:anemet at apple.com>] > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 3:23 AM > To: Nema, Ashutosh > Cc: Hal Finkel; Philip Reames; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Subject:

Ok, replying anew now that I understand why reasoning about abstract locations for each object doesn't work. The general idea of describing a set of load and stores which belong to a particular invariant group seems reasonable. I've got some questions/comments on the specifics, but the overall direction seems entirely workable for the specific problem you're trying to solve.