search for: mcurtis

On Oct 2, 2012, at 7:23 AM, Matthew Curtis <mcurtis at codeaurora.org> wrote: > I'm adding support for -ffixed-<reg> for Hexagon and was wondering if I should do it in such a way that other targets get the support as well by default or if a given target back-end should have to explicitly opt-in for support. It would be great to have...

...eve) correct for %conv2. The intent of the patch is to construct the correct (evaluatable) expression for %result.03 being fed into the computation of %conv2. Does that make more sense? Matthew C. On 12/18/2012 12:54 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Curtis <mcurtis at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> Here's how I'm evaluating the expression (in my head): >> >> 00: Add(ZeroExtend(Truncate(Minus(AddRec(Start=0,Step=3)[n],3), i8), i32),3) >> | >> 01: Add(ZeroExtend(Trunca...

Dan, Thanks for the response ... On 12/17/2012 1:53 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Matthew Curtis <mcurtis at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> I wanted to get some feedback on this patch for ScalarEvolution. >> >> It addresses a performance problem I am seeing for simple benchmark. >> >> Starting with this C code: >> >> 01: signed char f...

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Matthew Curtis <mcurtis at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Ok, so I think I've mis-represented what's really happening. > Ignore my previous statements concerning %add :) > > Again, given: > > 05: for.body: ; preds = %entry, > %for.body > 06: %j.04 =...

I'm adding support for -ffixed-<reg> <http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.4.3/gcc/Code-Gen-Options.html#index-ffixed-1435> for Hexagon and was wondering if I should do it in such a way that other targets get the support as well by default or if a given target back-end should have to explicitly opt-in for support. Any opinions? Matthew Curtis. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center,

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Curtis <mcurtis at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > Here's how I'm evaluating the expression (in my head): > > 00: Add(ZeroExtend(Truncate(Minus(AddRec(Start=0,Step=3)[n],3), i8), i32),3) > | > 01: Add(ZeroExtend(Truncate(Minus(AddRec(...

On 9/7/2012 4:08 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Matthew Curtis <mcurtis at codeaurora.org > <mailto:mcurtis at codeaurora.org>> wrote: > > Hello all, > > For the hexagon target, we have a couple of tests that are failing > due to variations in the order of checked text. In these cases the > ordering is not directly relevan...

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Matthew Curtis <mcurtis at codeaurora.org>wrote: > Hello all, > > For the hexagon target, we have a couple of tests that are failing due to > variations in the order of checked text. In these cases the ordering is not > directly relevant to the functionality being tested. > > For example: > &g...

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Matthew Curtis <mcurtis at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hello all, > > I wanted to get some feedback on this patch for ScalarEvolution. > > It addresses a performance problem I am seeing for simple benchmark. > > Starting with this C code: > > 01: signed char foo(void) > 02: { > 03: const...

...uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Matthew Curtis Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 9:28 AM To: Chandler Carruth Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] teaching FileCheck to handle variations in order On 9/7/2012 4:08 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Matthew Curtis <mcurtis at codeaurora.org> wrote: Hello all, For the hexagon target, we have a couple of tests that are failing due to variations in the order of checked text. In these cases the ordering is not directly relevant to the functionality being tested. For example: ; CHECK: memw(##a) ; CHECK: memw(##b)...

To test some recent changes, I need to verify that seven instructions are generated. However, the order of those instructions doesn't matter (they are all independent loads from memory). Is there a way to tell FileCheck to reset its scan position rather than assuming all CHECK: instructions must be in the given order? My initial version of the test was to use -O0, attempting to ensure that

...rence, but essentially the same. Thoughts? Matthew C. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -------------- next part -------------- >From e9ca53595ee7a274308c823d14cccd5a8598814d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Curtis <mcurtis at codeaurora.org> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 17:25:20 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] Teach ScalarEvolution to handle IV=add(zext(trunc(IV)), Accum) Code generated for 8-bit and 16-bit induction variables commonly produces this pattern (on hexagon), where the add is performed as a 32-bit operation, but is...

...uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Matthew Curtis Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 9:28 AM To: Chandler Carruth Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] teaching FileCheck to handle variations in order On 9/7/2012 4:08 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Matthew Curtis <mcurtis at codeaurora.org> wrote: Hello all, For the hexagon target, we have a couple of tests that are failing due to variations in the order of checked text. In these cases the ordering is not directly relevant to the functionality being tested. For example: ; CHECK: memw(##a) ; CHECK: memw(##b)...

Hello all, For the hexagon target, we have a couple of tests that are failing due to variations in the order of checked text. In these cases the ordering is not directly relevant to the functionality being tested. For example: ; CHECK: memw(##a) ; CHECK: memw(##b) %0 = load i32* @a, align 4 %1 = load i32* @b, align 4 requires that the compiler emit the memory operations for

Hello all. I'm investigating a problem with "Machine Instruction Scheduling" that is rooted in incorrect alias information. Things go wrong in the "Merge disjoint stack slots"[1] pass when a store instruction fails to get updated after its stack slot is merged. As a result, when "Machine Instruction Scheduling" runs, it incorrectly re-orders the store and a

...2012 9:28 AM > *To:* Chandler Carruth > *Cc:* llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > *Subject:* Re: [LLVMdev] teaching FileCheck to handle variations in order* > *** > > ** ** > > On 9/7/2012 4:08 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:**** > > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Matthew Curtis <mcurtis at codeaurora.org> > wrote:**** > > Hello all, > > For the hexagon target, we have a couple of tests that are failing due to > variations in the order of checked text. In these cases the ordering is not > directly relevant to the functionality being tested. > > For exa...

On 10/2/2012 9:36 AM, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) wrote: > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 09:23:27AM -0500, Matthew Curtis wrote: >> I'm adding support for -ffixed-<reg> for Hexagon and was wondering if I should >> do it in such a way that other targets get the support as well by default or if >> a given target back-end should have to explicitly opt-in for support. > What

On 1/31/2013 9:07 PM, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) wrote: > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:02:47PM -0600, Matthew Curtis wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> In the process of porting the Polly plug-in to Windows we encountered a couple >> of issues stemming from the use (within Polly) of global data from LLVM. >> >> By far the most common occurrence of this is the definition by a

Hello all, In the process of porting the Polly plug-in to Windows we encountered a couple of issues stemming from the use (within Polly) of global data from LLVM. By far the most common occurrence of this is the definition by a class of a publicly accessible static ID, the address of which is used to uniquely identify the class. For example class AliasAnalysis { public:

On 9/7/2012 12:12 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek wrote: > On 9/7/2012 7:20 AM, Matthew Curtis wrote: >> >> The attached patch implements one possible solution. It introduces a >> position stack and a couple of directives: >> >> * 'CHECK-PUSH:' pushes the current match position onto the stack. >> * 'CHECK-POP:' pops the top value off of the stack