search for: lbb1_3

...pushl %edi .Ltmp14: .cfi_def_cfa_offset 12 pushl %esi .Ltmp15: .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16 subl $88, %esp .Ltmp16: .cfi_def_cfa_offset 104 .Ltmp17: .cfi_offset %esi, -16 .Ltmp18: .cfi_offset %edi, -12 .Ltmp19: .cfi_offset %ebx, -8 pxor %xmm0, %xmm0 movl 112(%esp), %eax testl %eax, %eax je .LBB1_3 # BB#1: xorl %ebx, %ebx movl 108(%esp), %ecx movl 104(%esp), %edx xorl %esi, %esi .align 16, 0x90 .LBB1_2: # %.lr.ph.i # =>This Inner Loop Header: Depth=1 movsd (%edx,%ebx,8), %xmm2 addsd .LCPI1_0, %xmm2 movsd 16(%edx...

...e comments of mine: > > mov r12, #255 > orr r12, r12, #65280 > LBB1_1: > ldrsh r3, [r1] # loads a short that is sign-extended to 32 bits > mov r4, lr > cmp r3, #2048 > bge .LBB1_3 > and r4, r3, r12 # mask with 0xffff to convert to short again > lsl r4, r4, #16 # this lsl and the following > asr r5, r4, #16 # asr implement sign-extension to 32 bits again .... > ldr r4, .LCPI1_1 >...

Dear guys, I am having problem to split edges correctly. Mostly because the new basic blocks are creating infinite loops. Could someone help me fixing the code below? It is creating assembly like this one below. Block LBB1_9 was inserted to break the critical edge between blocks LBB1_3 and LBB1_8. But it changes the semantics of the original program, because, before, LBB1_8 was falling through LBB1_4, and now it is falling on LBB1_9. LBB1_3: ;no_exit lis r4, 21845 ori r4, r4, 21846 mulhw r4, r2, r4 addi r5, r2, -1 li r6, -1 srwi r6...

...pushl %edi .Ltmp14: .cfi_def_cfa_offset 12 pushl %esi .Ltmp15: .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16 subl $88, %esp .Ltmp16: .cfi_def_cfa_offset 104 .Ltmp17: .cfi_offset %esi, -16 .Ltmp18: .cfi_offset %edi, -12 .Ltmp19: .cfi_offset %ebx, -8 pxor %xmm0, %xmm0 movl 112(%esp), %eax testl %eax, %eax je .LBB1_3 # BB#1: xorl %ebx, %ebx movl 108(%esp), %ecx movl 104(%esp), %edx xorl %esi, %esi .align 16, 0x90 .LBB1_2: # %.lr.ph.i # =>This Inner Loop Header: Depth=1 movsd (%edx,%ebx,8), %xmm2 addsd .LCPI1_0, %xmm2 movsd 16(%edx...

...# @hoo 77 .cfi_startproc 78 # BB#0: 79 movq a(%rip), %rax 80 movq cnt(%rip), %rcx 81 cmpq $0, i_hasval(%rip) 82 sete %sil 83 xorl %edx, %edx 84 .p2align 4, 0x90 85 .LBB1_1: # =>This Inner Loop Header: Depth=1 86 testb $1, %sil 87 je .LBB1_3 88 # BB#2: # in Loop: Header=BB1_1 Depth=1 89 movq b(%rip), %rsi 90 addq %rax, %rsi 91 movq %rsi, c(%rip) 92 movq $3, i_hasval(%rip) 93 incq %rdx 94 xorl %esi, %esi 95 cmpq %rcx, %rdx 96 jl .LBB1_1 97 .LBB1_3: 98 retq ``` IMHO, enhancing...

...s, > > I am having problem to split edges correctly. Mostly because the new > basic blocks are creating infinite loops. Could someone help me fixing the > code below? It is creating assembly like this one below. Block LBB1_9 was > inserted to break the critical edge between blocks LBB1_3 and LBB1_8. But > it changes the semantics of the original program, because, before, LBB1_8 > was falling through LBB1_4, and now it is falling on LBB1_9. > > LBB1_3: ;no_exit > lis r4, 21845 > ori r4, r4, 21846 > mulhw r4, r2, r4 > addi r5, r2, -...

...movq cnt(%rip), %rcx >> 81 cmpq $0, i_hasval(%rip) >> 82 sete %sil >> 83 xorl %edx, %edx >> 84 .p2align 4, 0x90 >> 85 .LBB1_1: # =>This Inner Loop Header: >> Depth=1 >> 86 testb $1, %sil >> 87 je .LBB1_3 >> 88 # BB#2: # in Loop: Header=BB1_1 >> Depth=1 >> 89 movq b(%rip), %rsi >> 90 addq %rax, %rsi >> 91 movq %rsi, c(%rip) >> 92 movq $3, i_hasval(%rip) >> 93 incq %rdx >> 94 xorl %esi, %esi >> 9...

...tions_via_symbols Setting the loops to decl instead of cmove/incl might seem like more work, but appears to be faster: .text .align 4,0x90 .globl _main _main: subl $12, %esp movl $2000, %eax movl $1000000000, %ecx .align 4,0x90 LBB1_3: movl $2000, %eax LBB1_1: ## loopto decl %eax jz LBB1_3 decl %ecx jnz LBB1_1 ## loopto LBB1_2: ## bb1 movl %eax, 4(%esp) movl $LC, (%esp) call _printf xorl %eax, %eax addl $12, %esp...

...>> >> 82 sete %sil >> >> 83 xorl %edx, %edx >> >> 84 .p2align 4, 0x90 >> >> 85 .LBB1_1: # =>This Inner Loop Header: >> >> Depth=1 >> >> 86 testb $1, %sil >> >> 87 je .LBB1_3 >> >> 88 # BB#2: # in Loop: Header=BB1_1 >> >> Depth=1 >> >> 89 movq b(%rip), %rsi >> >> 90 addq %rax, %rsi >> >> 91 movq %rsi, c(%rip) >> >> 92 movq $3, i_hasval(%rip) >> &gt...

...t; >> mov r12, #255 >> orr r12, r12, #65280 >> LBB1_1: >> ldrsh r3, [r1] # loads a short that is sign-extended to 32 bits >> mov r4, lr >> cmp r3, #2048 >> bge .LBB1_3 >> and r4, r3, r12 # mask with 0xffff to convert to short again >> lsl r4, r4, #16 # this lsl and the following >> asr r5, r4, #16 # asr implement sign-extension to 32 bits again .... >> ldr r4, .LCPI1_1...

...gt; >> 83 xorl %edx, %edx >>>> >> 84 .p2align 4, 0x90 >>>> >> 85 .LBB1_1: # =>This Inner Loop Header: >>>> >> Depth=1 >>>> >> 86 testb $1, %sil >>>> >> 87 je .LBB1_3 >>>> >> 88 # BB#2: # in Loop: Header=BB1_1 >>>> >> Depth=1 >>>> >> 89 movq b(%rip), %rsi >>>> >> 90 addq %rax, %rsi >>>> >> 91 movq %rsi, c(%rip) >>>> &gt...

...seemingly applying tail call optimization even though the ret instruction does not follow the tail call instruction: <snip> _ack.15: ## @ack.15 Leh_func_begin1: ## BB#0: ## %entry pushq %rbx Ltmp1: Ltmp2: testq %rdi, %rdi jle LBB1_3 ## BB#1: ## %if.no movq %rdi, %rbx testq %rsi, %rsi jle LBB1_4 ## BB#2: ## %if.no2 decq %rsi movq %rbx, %rdi callq _ack.15 movq %rbx, %rdi decq %rdi movq %rax, %rsi popq %rbx jmp _ack.15 ## TAILCALL LBB1_3:...

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Jonathan Turner <probata at hotmail.com> wrote: > For which version of gcc?  I should mention I'm on OS X and using the LLVM > SVN. gcc 4.3. It's also possible this is processor-sensitive. >> First, try looking at the generated code... the code LLVM generates is >> probably not what you're expecting. I'm getting the

> If you don't want critical edges in the machine code CFG, you're going to > have to write a machine code CFG critical edge splitting pass: LLVM > doesn't currently have one. > > -Chris Hey guys, I've coded a pass to break the critical edges of the machine control flow graph. The program works fine, but I am sure it is not the right way of implementing it.

...dx, %edx > >>>> >> 84 .p2align 4, 0x90 > >>>> >> 85 .LBB1_1: # =>This Inner Loop Header: > >>>> >> Depth=1 > >>>> >> 86 testb $1, %sil > >>>> >> 87 je .LBB1_3 > >>>> >> 88 # BB#2: # in Loop: Header=BB1_1 > >>>> >> Depth=1 > >>>> >> 89 movq b(%rip), %rsi > >>>> >> 90 addq %rax, %rsi > >>>> >> 91 movq %rsi, c(...

> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 13:41:45 -0800 > From: eli.friedman at gmail.com > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Tight overlapping loops and performance > > Hmm, on my computer, I get around 2.5 seconds with both gcc -O3 and > llvm-gcc -O3 (using llvm-gcc from svn). Not sure what you're doing > differently; I wouldn't be surprised if it's

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > However, it does not remove all the critical edges. I am getting a very > weird dataflow graph (even without the Break Critical edges pass). The > dataflow generated by MachineFunction::dump() for the program below is > given here: > http://compilers.cs.ucla.edu/fernando/projects/soc/images/loop_no_crit2.pdf ... > The

...ip), %rax cmpq $0, i_hasval(%rip) sete %dl xorl %ecx, %ecx .p2align 4, 0x90 .LBB1_1: # %do.body.us.i # =>This Inner Loop Header: Depth=1 testb $1, %dl je .LBB1_3 # BB#2: # %if.end2.us.i # in Loop: Header=BB1_1 Depth=1 movq b(%rip), %rdx movq $3, i_hasval(%rip) incq %rcx xorl %edx, %edx cmpq %rax, %rcx jl .LBB1_1 .LBB1...

...s_aux, at function > __do_global_dtors_aux: > subq $8, %rsp > movq %rbp, (%rsp) > movq %rsp, %rbp > cmpb $0, completed.4705(%rip) > jne .LBB1_4 #UnifiedReturnBlock > .LBB1_1: #bb9.preheader > movq p.4704(%rip), %rax > movq (%rax), %rax > cmpq $0, %rax > je .LBB1_3 #bb16 > .LBB1_2: #bb > addq $4, p.4704(%rip) > call *%rax > movq p.4704(%rip), %rax > movq (%rax), %rax > cmpq $0, %rax > jne .LBB1_2 #bb > .LBB1_3: #bb16 > movb $1, completed.4705(%rip) > movq %rbp, %rsp > popq %rbp > ret > .LBB1_4: #UnifiedReturnBl...

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> > wrote: > > The issue blocks another optimization patch and Wei has spent huge > amount of > > effort isolating the the bootstrap failure to this same problem. I agree > >