search for: shemer

Hi, Is it possible to give an instruction metadata that accepts function argument as operand? The 2 functions are in the same module so the metadata operand can be resolved. Here is how I imagine it should look like: define i32 @f(i32 %v) { %v0 = call i32 @f1 (i32 %v, metadata !0) ; this ok ret i32 %v0 } define i32 @f1 (i32 %v, metadata %md) { ; and this is ok

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 4:33 AM, Shemer, Anat <anat.shemer at intel.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Is it possible to give an instruction metadata that accepts function > argument as operand? The 2 functions are in the same module so the metadata > operand can be resolved. Here is how I imagine it should look like: > > d...

...ue below refers to LSR, so I'll appreciate your feedback. It also refers to instruction combining and might impact backends other than X86, so if you know of others that might be interested you are more than welcome to add them. Thanks, Anat _____________________________________________ From: Shemer, Anat Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 15:07 To: 'llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu' Subject: better code for IV Hi, I will be glad if you can give me some advice on how to make LLVM generate better code for IV in a simple loop case. There is IR sample below, I know of one way to do it, and I'm...

Hi, If you are familiar with LegalizeTypes I will be glad if you can help me with the following scenario. I'm debugging some ll test that fails with an assertion in "void DAGTypeLegalizer::RemapValue(SDValue &N)" because it does not expect that a remap to a new node exists. However looking at the code for a while this seems to be a valid case. I see that many times nodes are