search for: llvm_anyptr_ti

Hi, For PR21780 solution, I plan to add a new functionality to restore memory operations that was once deleted, in this particular case it is the load operations that were deleted by InstCombine, please note that once the load was removed there is no way to restore it back and that prevents us from vectorizing the shuffle operation. There are probably more similar issues where this approach could

Hi Michael, >Interesting approach but how do you handle more complex offsets, e.g., when the pointer is part of an aggregate? Only one offset does not seem enough to handle generic cases. Yes, correct, this a little bit changed example is not working. #include <x86intrin.h> __m256d vsht_d4_fold(const double* ptr, unsigned long long i) { __m256d foo = (__m256d){ ptr[i], ptr[i+1],

Hi, The proposed masked vector intrinsics are overloaded - one intrinsic ID for multiple types. After name mangling it will look like: %res = call <16 x i32> @llvm.masked.load.v16i32.p0i32.v16i32.i32.v16i1(i32* %addr, <16 x i32>%passthru, i32 4, <16 x i1> %mask) 6 types x 3 vector sizes = 18 names for one operation I propose to remove name mangling from these intrinsics: %res

Julien Schmitt wrote: > I would like to use intrinsic with different address space. > I defined an intrinsic (used to represent à specific instruction of my target) with a pointer in its arguments, but when calling this intrinsic, if the pointer is not in the generic address space (ie AddrSpace 0), an error occurs ("bad signature"). > > How can I specify the address space in

Hi Michael, >I have a case where InstCombine removes a store and your approach would be >valuable for me if the entire access to an aggregate could be restored. Yes, no problem and we could add the aggregate pointer to this new intrinsic and in my particular case I should ignore it, but I am looking now at "speculation_marker" metadata and I am still not sure how to implement it

I would like to use intrinsic with different address space. I defined an intrinsic (used to represent à specific instruction of my target) with a pointer in its arguments, but when calling this intrinsic, if the pointer is not in the generic address space (ie AddrSpace 0), an error occurs ("bad signature"). How can I specify the address space in the intrinsic definition ? Thank you.

Hi all, There might be a bug in DeadStoreElimination.cpp. This pass eliminates stores backwards aggressively in an end BB. It does not check dependencies on stores in an end BB though. For example, in this code snippet: ... 1. %sum.safe_r47.pre-phi = phi i64* [ %sum.safe_r47.pre, %entry.for.end_crit_edge ], [ %sum.safe_r42, %for.body ] 2. %call9 = call i32 @gettimeofday(%struct.timeval* %end,

On 09/13/2017 04:46 PM, Dinar Temirbulatov via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi Michael, >> I have a case where InstCombine removes a store and your approach would be >> valuable for me if the entire access to an aggregate could be restored. > Yes, no problem and we could add the aggregate pointer to this new > intrinsic and in my particular case I should ignore it, but I am > looking

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Zeng Bin <ezengbin at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> There might be a bug in DeadStoreElimination.cpp. This pass eliminates >> stores backwards aggressively in an end BB. It does not check dependencies >> on stores in an end BB though.

Hi Hal, >Are you primarily concerned with being able to widen loads later in the pipeline? Could we attached metadata to the remaining loads indicating that it would be legal to widen them? no, I don't have any concerns about intrinsic way of implementation, and intrinsic way looks safer for me since we somehow detach our information about memory from that actual load instruction. I updated

> On Oct 26, 2014, at 8:22 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Elena Demikhovsky" <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:17:49 AM >> Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] Masked vector

Hal, thank you for your opinion. I just was confused when I saw so long name " llvm.masked.load.v16i32.p0i32.v16i32.i32.v16i1" . If we stay with a short name, we do a step towards instruction form. - Elena -----Original Message----- From: Hal Finkel [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 17:06 To: Demikhovsky, Elena Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re:

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Zeng Bin <ezengbin at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > There might be a bug in DeadStoreElimination.cpp. This pass eliminates > stores backwards aggressively in an end BB. It does not check dependencies > on stores in an end BB though. For example, in this code snippet: >   ... > 1.  %sum.safe_r47.pre-phi = phi i64* [ %sum.safe_r47.pre,

On 09/26/2017 08:31 AM, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote: > Hi Hal, >> Are you primarily concerned with being able to widen loads later in the pipeline? Could we attached metadata to the remaining loads indicating that it would be legal to widen them? > no, I don't have any concerns about intrinsic way of implementation, > and intrinsic way looks safer for me since we somehow detach our

It does not do anything. It is an abstract function which transforms a pointer and returns another pointer of the same type. It does not visit memory or capture the pointer parameter. On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at

If int_guard_load returns a pointer based on the passed-in pointer, it captures it (at least according to the definition of "capture" which NoCapture uses). -Eli On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Zeng Bin <ezengbin at gmail.com> wrote: > It does not do anything. It is an abstract function which transforms a > pointer and returns another pointer of the same type. It does not

> Please start a thread on llvmdev about this functionality, and outline what other intrinsics will have to change to add non-8-bit byte support. Well, memset is the only we have seen so far (our back-end is ~50% finished for an initial release). We have our own front-end as well (we are currently not using the clang front-end), and currently don't use many llvm intrinsics (only

Masked load/store are overloaded intrinsics, the only generic type is the type of the value being loaded/stored. The signature of the intrinsic is generated based on this type. The type of the pointer argument is generated as a pointer to the return type with default addrspace. E.g.: declare <8 x i32> @llvm.masked.load.v8i32(<8 x i32>*, i32, <8 x i1>, <8 x i32>) The

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Tanya M. Lattner <tonic at nondot.org> wrote: > > This should be fixed now. I verified it with 3.4.6 on a x86 linux box. > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090302/074769.html > > I think most of our nightly testers are using gcc4. Works for me, thanks. Still a bit puzzled why this didn't break under gcc4,