search for: jmolloy

...gt; wrote: > This should probably be raised on llvm-dev for boarder visibility. > > Side question: What optimizations or codegen opportunities does this > enable? i.e. what's the actual use case? > > > On 11/02/2015 05:03 AM, James Molloy via llvm-commits wrote: > > jmolloy created this revision. > jmolloy added reviewers: manmanren, dexonsmith, joker.eph. > jmolloy added a subscriber: llvm-commits. > jmolloy set the repository for this revision to rL LLVM. > > This attribute allows the compiler to assume that the function never recurses into itself, ei...

...visibility. > >> > >> Side question: What optimizations or codegen opportunities does this > >> enable? i.e. what's the actual use case? > >> > >> > >> On 11/02/2015 05:03 AM, James Molloy via llvm-commits wrote: > >> > >> jmolloy created this revision. > >> jmolloy added reviewers: manmanren, dexonsmith, joker.eph. > >> jmolloy added a subscriber: llvm-commits. > >> jmolloy set the repository for this revision to rL LLVM. > >> > >> This attribute allows the compiler to assume tha...

...What optimizations or codegen opportunities does this > >> >> enable? i.e. what's the actual use case? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 11/02/2015 05:03 AM, James Molloy via llvm-commits wrote: > >> >> > >> >> jmolloy created this revision. > >> >> jmolloy added reviewers: manmanren, dexonsmith, joker.eph. > >> >> jmolloy added a subscriber: llvm-commits. > >> >> jmolloy set the repository for this revision to rL LLVM. > >> >> > >> >> Thi...

...izes them after the stock > MachinePipeliner runs. Not having to do that would be great, but now that > it’s implemented, I think I can stop bothering you guys for historical > data! J > > > > Thanks again! > > > > JB > > > > *From:* James Molloy [mailto:jmolloy at google.com] > *Sent:* Monday, September 7, 2020 1:49 AM > *To:* Nagurne, James > *Cc:* Jinsong Ji; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Sander; Hendrik Greving > *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: [llvm-dev] Machinepipeliner interface. > shouldIgnoreForPipelining, actually not ignoring. > &g...

...ream, our team might be amenable to help out. I do, > however, wonder if the implementation was used in a custom scheduler rather > than the default SMS and expander. That would make generalizing quite a bit > tougher. > > > > JB > > > > *From:* James Molloy [mailto:jmolloy at google.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 3, 2020 2:07 PM > *To:* Nagurne, James > *Cc:* Jinsong Ji; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Sander; Hendrik Greving > *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: [llvm-dev] Machinepipeliner interface. > shouldIgnoreForPipelining, actually not ignoring. >...

...tween those two points, so > you’d have to synthesize a region, create a meta-iterator, or some other > intrusive modification. > > > > JB > > > > *From:* Jinsong Ji [mailto:jji at us.ibm.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 3, 2020 10:03 AM > *To:* Nagurne, James; jmolloy at google.com > *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Sander > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [llvm-dev] Machinepipeliner interface. > shouldIgnoreForPipelining, actually not ignoring. > > > > As I mentioned before, > this API was introduced by James, mostly for his out-of-tree >...

Sorry to bring this thread from 3 months ago back, but I’m running into this issue too. I do see that shouldIgnore is not called in the MachinePipeliner, however, James’ comment doesn’t really resolve the issue or make the story any clearer. My summary of the comment is: “Hexagon and PPC9 do not need to ignore any instructions. However, in the case that you do, such as when the indvar update is