search for: signextend

...en select regions that answer some requirements ( > in ScopDetection ). Because only affine expressions in conditions and > bounds are permissible, we trying to get scalar expressions into > affine form by AffineSCEVIterator. At present there plugs for scev > types Truncate, ZeroExtend, SignExtend, UDivExpr, UMaxExpr , SMaxExpr. > Also there are no support for wrap flags NUW, NSW, NW. It can be > unsafe if we doesn't provide this information in polly IR. Yes, if AffineSCEVIterator can iterate Truncate, ZeroExtend and SignExtend correctly, polly can accept much more Scops. > >...

...RegionInfo ) and then select regions that answer some requirements ( in ScopDetection ). Because only affine expressions in conditions and bounds are permissible, we trying to get scalar expressions into affine form by AffineSCEVIterator. At present there plugs for scev types Truncate, ZeroExtend, SignExtend, UDivExpr, UMaxExpr , SMaxExpr. Also there are no support for wrap flags NUW, NSW, NW. It can be unsafe if we doesn't provide this information in polly IR. So I will mainly improve AffineSCEVIterator. Now I should to show test cases indicating that - loops with above-listed types expressions c...

...s that answer some requirements ( >> in ScopDetection ). Because only affine expressions in conditions and >> bounds are permissible, we trying to get scalar expressions into >> affine form by AffineSCEVIterator. At present there plugs for scev >> types Truncate, ZeroExtend, SignExtend, UDivExpr, UMaxExpr , SMaxExpr. >> Also there are no support for wrap flags NUW, NSW, NW. It can be >> unsafe if we doesn't provide this information in polly IR. > Yes, if AffineSCEVIterator can iterate Truncate, ZeroExtend and > SignExtend correctly, polly can accept much mor...

...me requirements ( >>> in ScopDetection ). Because only affine expressions in conditions and >>> bounds are permissible, we trying to get scalar expressions into >>> affine form by AffineSCEVIterator. At present there plugs for scev >>> types Truncate, ZeroExtend, SignExtend, UDivExpr, UMaxExpr , SMaxExpr. >>> Also there are no support for wrap flags NUW, NSW, NW. It can be >>> unsafe if we doesn't provide this information in polly IR. >> Yes, if AffineSCEVIterator can iterate Truncate, ZeroExtend and >> SignExtend correctly, polly can...

...( >>>> in ScopDetection ). Because only affine expressions in conditions and >>>> bounds are permissible, we trying to get scalar expressions into >>>> affine form by AffineSCEVIterator. At present there plugs for scev >>>> types Truncate, ZeroExtend, SignExtend, UDivExpr, UMaxExpr , SMaxExpr. >>>> Also there are no support for wrap flags NUW, NSW, NW. It can be >>>> unsafe if we doesn't provide this information in polly IR. >>> >>> Yes, if AffineSCEVIterator can iterate Truncate, ZeroExtend and >>> Si...

...s that answer some requirements ( >> in ScopDetection ). Because only affine expressions in conditions and >> bounds are permissible, we trying to get scalar expressions into >> affine form by AffineSCEVIterator. At present there plugs for scev >> types Truncate, ZeroExtend, SignExtend, UDivExpr, UMaxExpr , SMaxExpr. >> Also there are no support for wrap flags NUW, NSW, NW. It can be >> unsafe if we doesn't provide this information in polly IR. > Yes, if AffineSCEVIterator can iterate Truncate, ZeroExtend and > SignExtend correctly, polly can accept much mor...

...diate properly reproduce with: echo 0x40 0xd0 | .../llvm-mc -triple thumbv7 -show-encoding -disassemble -show-inst The re-encoding has an incorrect offset when the 6th bit of the immediate is set. A look at the code shows that the decoder uses a C++ cast to signed integer rather than calling the SignExtend function. [bug 2] - STRD with negative offset re-encodes to positive offset and disassembles with no offset reproduce with: echo 0x61 0xe9 0x00 0x00 | .../llvm-mc -triple thumbv7 -show-encoding -disassemble -show-inst Any encoding with the U bit unset, re-encodes to the equivalent instruction wi...

On 04/04/2011 12:23 AM, Vlad Krylov wrote: > > Hi. Hi Vlad, first of all it seems the conflict with raghesh was already solved. Nice. Regarding your draft. It looks like a reasonable first version, but it obviously needs to be extended for the final application. I would also recommend to install Polly and try to find the first test cases that cannot be handled. Some comments to your

Hi. My plan would be: 1w Study sources of Polly and LLVM docs relating to analysis. 2w Create tests which demonstrate problems with NSW/NUW 3-4w Fix the handling of wrap overflows. 5w Complete middle term paperwork. 6w Create tests for each of cases which are not currently optimized (e.g. have min/max, sext/zext, trunc or unsigned comparisons in the loop bounds or memory accesses). 7w Learn how

Hi Joan, On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 18:01, Joan Lluch <joan.lluch at icloud.com> wrote: > After looking at it a bit further, I think this is a Clang thing. Clang issues “align 2” if the struct has at least one int (2 bytes), but also if the entire struct size is multiple of 2. For example a struct with 4 char members. In these cases the LLVM backend correctly creates word sized load/stores

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > For llvm-dwarfdump we need to handle relocations inside the debug info > sections in order to successfully dump the dwarf info including strings. > Nick sent out a partial patch that did this not too long ago and I've taken > it and gone in a bit of a different direction, but kept the same basic

For llvm-dwarfdump we need to handle relocations inside the debug info sections in order to successfully dump the dwarf info including strings. Nick sent out a partial patch that did this not too long ago and I've taken it and gone in a bit of a different direction, but kept the same basic architecture. In place of applying the relocations to the data we've read from disk I'm keeping

Hi all, > On 2 Oct 2019, at 14:34, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote > Providing target options/overrides to code that is supposed to be target-independent sounds self-defeating to me. I doubt that proposal would gain much support. > Of course, if you're customizing LLVM for your own out-of-trunk backend, you can do anything you'd like if you're willing to