search for: schwaighof

CC the list. On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer <arnold.schwaighofer at gmail.com> wrote: > Assuming you use the scavenger in your own code yes. > > A usage could look like: > > for all basic blocks BB: > RS->enter(BB) > for all instructions CurrInst in block order: > if CurrInst has virtual def >...

On Sep 27, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer <aschwaighofer at apple.com> wrote: > so you could infer that n must be smaller than 8 (because you know the range of the other dimension). The question is how often does such an example occur, where this is possible, to make such an effort justifiable? smaller equal, of course ;)

The patch is in http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20080421/061548.html . Okay to commit :) On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer <arnold.schwaighofer at gmail.com> wrote: > Another round :) > > I'll post the patch to llvm-commits cause i guess people might get > annoyed by my series of patches :). > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > ....

Arnold Schwaighofer <arnold.schwaighofer at gmail.com> writes: > We used to have an LLVM-IR pass did tail duplication > (http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/tags/RELEASE_29/final/lib/Transforms/Scalar/TailDuplication.cpp) > It was not used and went away with 3.0. The documentation is out of >...

Another round :) I'll post the patch to llvm-commits cause i guess people might get annoyed by my series of patches :). On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: . >> +PPCTargetLowering::IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization(SDOperand Call, >> ... > That's fine. Please break it into two parts and move the target > independent part

> On Aug 7, 2014, at 2:57 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer <aschwaighofer at apple.com> wrote: > > Your .ll file does not have a data layout. Opt will not initialize the DataLayoutPass. The SLP vectorizer will not vectorize because there is no DataLayoutPass. > > debug-cmake/bin/opt -default-data-layout="e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:...

Hi Hal, On Feb 4, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> >> To: "Arnold Schwaighofer" <aschwaighofer at apple.com> >> Cc: "LLVM Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >> Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 1:38:03 PM >> Subject: Re: Vectorizer usi...

...that, we need to identify the loop cost and decide if it makes sense to completely unroll the loop, or partially unroll. I am unsure of the optimal way to implement this though. I want to run it by the list to get any ideas floating around :) Thanks Sriram -----Original Message----- From: Arnold Schwaighofer [mailto:aschwaighofer at apple.com] Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 1:54 PM To: Murali, Sriram Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Trip count and Loop Vectorizer On Sep 27, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer <aschwaighofer at apple.com> wrote: > so you could infer...

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Jeff Kuskin <jk500500 at yahoo.com> wrote: > Two related questions. > (2) Why does the x86-64 JIT backend generate a "ret $0x8" instruction > to return from a fastcc function that is (a) marked as fastcc > (CallingConv::Fast); but (b) takes no arguments and returns 'void'? fastcc generated code ends with this: > c20800

...39;m also providing an override of the virtual method saveScavengerRegister. In Mips16, I have an extra mips 32 register (not usually very useful since it can only be used in a move instruction) I can use instead of having to go to the stack for an emergency slot. On 11/10/2012 04:39 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > CC the list. > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer > <arnold.schwaighofer at gmail.com> wrote: >> Assuming you use the scavenger in your own code yes. >> >> A usage could look like: >> >> for all basic blocks BB: >>...

Yes please. Evan On Oct 5, 2007, at 11:55 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > > On 5 Oct 2007, at 20:47, Evan Cheng wrote: > >> >> On Oct 5, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: >> >>> >>>> We can set a policy of treating fastcc external functions >>>> as c functions. Then there is no chance of...

On Oct 5, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > >> We can set a policy of treating fastcc external functions >> as c functions. Then there is no chance of introducing ABI >> incompatibility. > this means limiting tail call opt to protected/invisible functions > within a module? > a little limiting i thin...

On 5 Oct 2007, at 19:41, Evan Cheng wrote: > > On Oct 5, 2007, at 2:42 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > >> Hi Evan, >> I incoporated the changes you request but to the following i have got >> a question: >> >>> Also, moving the option >>> there will allow us to change fastcc ABI (callee popping arguments) >>> only when this option is on...

On 08/20, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > > > On Aug 20, 2014, at 8:08 AM, Robison, Arch <arch.robison at intel.com> wrote: > > > >> I recommend that you send patches for an implementation > >> (including the Loop::GetAnnotatedVectorSafelen function > >> and associated updates...

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer < aschwaighofer at apple.com> wrote: > The LoopVectorizer depends on LCSSA and LoopSimplify. Both are loop > passes. We will have to make them also available as utility functions. Yuck. We still need to fix these at least, but that's much better than teaching *all* the loop pas...

On 5 Oct 2007, at 20:47, Evan Cheng wrote: > > On Oct 5, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > >> >>> We can set a policy of treating fastcc external functions >>> as c functions. Then there is no chance of introducing ABI >>> incompatibility. >> this means limiting tail call opt to protected/invisible functions >> within a module? &...

Ok. Like I said, I am not too concerned with one or two llcbeta failures. That's expected. Thx, Evan On Oct 5, 2007, at 3:18 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer <arnold.schwaighofer at gmail.com > wrote: > Another round ;) Sadly not beer. > > tested against r42630 darwin-x86: > SPASS llc-beta still fails > > thanks for the patience > > On 5 Oct 2007, at 20:58, Evan Cheng wrote: > >> Yes please. >>> okay...

I'm confused as to the logic used in the register scavenger when it cannot find a free register. I would think that it would want to free up the emergency spill slot immediately after it's use, because otherwise there is a chance of needing to use the emergency slot again and not be able to. Instead it tries to restore it only right before register it is freeing up. Maybe I'm

For marking a call site as a tail call you have to call void setTailCall(bool isTC = true) on the CallInst. The calling convention of the function needs to be CallingConv::Fast (currently only fastcc calls are optimized) and the call has to be in tail position of course. To enable tail call optimization in an embedded vm i guess you would include llvm/Target/TargetOptions.h and set the static

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: >> to me like llvm-gcc honors that. Certainly it should. > > This would imply one fastcc abi (callee pops args on return) to rule > them all? > That is only if fastcall translates to llvm fastcc of course. fastcall != fastcc. fastcall is a well defined convention on x...