search for: numelems

...%for.body.lr.ph ], [ %inc, %for.body ] %ptr.02 = phi i32 addrspace(4)* [ %0, %for.body.lr.ph ], [ %add.ptr, %for.body ] store i32 %i.03, i32 addrspace(4)* %ptr.02, align 4 %add.ptr = getelementptr inbounds i32 addrspace(4)* %ptr.02, i64 4 %inc = add i32 %i.03, 1 %exitcond = icmp eq i32 %inc, %numElems br i1 %exitcond, label %for.end, label %for.body for.end: ; preds = % Thanks; Changpeng -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140821/a0d9e48b/attachment.html>

On 11/23/2011 05:52 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 21:22 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: >> > On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 11:55 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: >>> > > Tobias, >>> > > >>> > > I've attached an updated patch. It contains a few bug fixes and many >>> > > (refactoring and coding-convention) changes inspired

Tobias, I've attached an updated copy of the patch. I believe that I accounted for all of your suggestions except for: 1. You said that I could make AA a member of the class and initialize it for each basic block. I suppose that I'd need to make it a pointer, but more generally, what is the thread-safely model that I should have in mind for the analysis passes (will multiple threads

On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 21:22 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 11:55 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > > Tobias, > > > > I've attached an updated patch. It contains a few bug fixes and many > > (refactoring and coding-convention) changes inspired by your comments. > > > > I'm currently trying to fix the bug responsible for causing a compile

On Fri, 2011-12-02 at 17:07 +0100, Tobias Grosser wrote: > On 11/23/2011 05:52 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 21:22 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > >> > On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 11:55 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > >>> > > Tobias, > >>> > > > >>> > > I've attached an updated patch. It contains a few bug fixes

On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 11:55 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > Tobias, > > I've attached an updated patch. It contains a few bug fixes and many > (refactoring and coding-convention) changes inspired by your comments. > > I'm currently trying to fix the bug responsible for causing a compile > failure when compiling >

Hi, I'm quite puzzled by a little bit of code in the DAGCombiner where it merges loads in MergeConsecutiveStores. Two 16bit loads have been merged to one 32bit load, and two 16bit stores have been combined to one 32bit store. And then the code goes like this: // Replace one of the loads with the new load. LoadSDNode *Ld = cast<LoadSDNode>(LoadNodes[0].MemNode);

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > Can you explain why you chose the approach of using a new pass? > I pictured removing LegalizeDAG's type legalization code would > mostly consist of finding all the places that use TLI.getTypeAction > and just deleting code for handling its Expand and Promote. Are you > anticipating something more

On May 20, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Eli Friedman > <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Per subject, this patch adding an additional pass to handle vector >> >> operations; the idea is that this allows removing the code from >> >> LegalizeDAG that handles illegal types, which should be a significant

...AG.getConstantFP(-0.0, Op.getValueType()); + return DAG.getNode(ISD::FSUB, Op.getDebugLoc(), Op.getValueType(), + Zero, Op.getOperand(0)); + } + return UnrollVectorOp(Op); +} + +SDValue VectorLegalizer::UnrollVSETCC(SDValue Op) { + MVT VT = Op.getValueType(); + unsigned NumElems = VT.getVectorNumElements(); + MVT EltVT = VT.getVectorElementType(); + SDValue LHS = Op.getOperand(0), RHS = Op.getOperand(1), CC = Op.getOperand(2); + MVT TmpEltVT = LHS.getValueType().getVectorElementType(); + DebugLoc dl = Op.getDebugLoc(); + SmallVector<SDValue, 8> Ops(NumElems); +...

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org>wrote: > On 18 February 2011 21:34, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry, I meant DIBuilder. > > DIBuilder is the new DIFactory. I've been playing with it this week > and it's much easier and straightforward to use. I'm still having > problems to create arrays, though.

On 11/17/2011 12:38 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: > Tobias, et al., > > Attached is the my autovectorization pass. Very nice. Will you be at the developer summit? Maybe we could discuss the integration there? Here a first review of the source code. > diff --git a/docs/Passes.html b/docs/Passes.html > index 5c42f3f..076effa 100644 > --- a/docs/Passes.html > +++ b/docs/Passes.html

Tobias, I've attached an updated patch. It contains a few bug fixes and many (refactoring and coding-convention) changes inspired by your comments. I'm currently trying to fix the bug responsible for causing a compile failure when compiling test-suite/MultiSource/Applications/obsequi/toggle_move.c; after the pass begins to fuse instructions in a basic block in this file, the aliasing

Tobias, et al., Attached is the my autovectorization pass. I've fixed a bug that appears when using -bb-vectorize-aligned-only, fixed some 80-col violations, etc., and at least on x86_64, all test cases pass except for a few; and all of these failures look like instruction-selection bugs. For example: MultiSource/Applications/ClamAV - fails to compile shared_sha256.c with an error: error in

Tobias, I've attached the latest version of my autovectorization patch. I was able to add support for using the ScalarEvolution analysis for load/store pairing (thanks for your help!). This led to a modest performance increase and a modest compile-time increase. This version also has a cutoff as you suggested (although the default value is set high (4000 instructions between pairs) because