search for: simplifications

I am trying to implement if-conversion as an LLVM pass. My reference is Chapter 7 of the book ""Optimizing Compilers for Modern Architectures", based on the suggestion here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/llvm-dev/FlDGnqSGbR8/eH5hO9IBbXYJ Some steps in the if-conversion pass require simplification of Boolean Expressions. Is this doable within the LLVM API? llvm::ConstantExpr seems

The PNaCl project has implemented various IR simplification passes that simplify LLVM IR by lowering complex features to simpler features. We'd like to upstream some of these IR passes to LLVM. We'd like to explore if this acceptable, and if so, how we should go about doing this. The immediate reason is that Emscripten is reusing PNaCl's IR passes for its new "fastcomp"

Dear list, Fully according to the documented behaviour, I was bitten by apply() simplifying results to vectors or arrays when the lengths of the individual objects returns by FUN are the same (over simplification). sapply() has argument simplify with default TRUE to control whether it attempts to simplify the returned objects or not. I do find it a little annoying that one is not able to force

> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 20:35:29 +0100 > Nicolas Cornu via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: > > > Merge btrfs_read_adv and xfs_read_adv into a single generic function > > ext_read_adv and split ext_write_adv_offset out of ext_write_adv. > > > > Use those new functions in rewrite_boot_image and btrfs_install_file > > where it is actually

I would like to nominate Sanjoy Das as code owner of Scalar Evolution and Induction Variable Simplification. Scalar Evolution has never had an official code owner, but does regularly need in depth review. Over the past year and a half, Sanjoy has made fantastic contributions to SCEV and has been responsive reviewing patches. He is clearly the authority at this point. Induction variable

Hi all, Attached herewith is a fairly simple LLVM file (shuffle.ll) with lots of vector shuffles. When I use llc with -O3 -mcpu=core-avx2 the first shuffle sequence containing types of 128 wide gets reduced a single shuffle, where as the second shuffle sequence containing types of 256 wide doesn't get reduced to a single shuffle instruction in the resulting X86 code (Shuffle.s attached).

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Redmond" <paul.redmond at intel.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 10:49:24 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] parallel loop metadata simplification > > > On 2013-03-01, at 11:35 AM, Hal

Hello, I have consciously avoided using step() for model simplification in favour of manually updating the model by removing non-significant terms one at a time. I'm using The R Book by M.J. Crawley as a guide. It comes as no surprise that my analysis does proceed as smoothly as does Crawley's and being a beginner, I'm struggling with what to do next. I have a model: lm(y~A * B *

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pekka Jääskeläinen" <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> > To: "Paul Redmond" <paul.redmond at intel.com> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es>, "<llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>" > <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Tuesday, March 5,

Hi I'm encountering some problems with coxme My data: I'm looking at the survival of animals in an experiment with 3 treatments, which came from 4 different populations, two of which were infected with a parasite and two of which were not. I'm interested if infected animals differe from uninfected ones across treatments. Factor 1: treatment (3 levels) Factor 2: infection state

On 2013-03-01, at 11:35 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Paul Redmond" <paul.redmond at intel.com> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >> Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> >> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 10:06:51 AM >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] parallel loop

Hallo. Here is a simplification of the automake stuff for nut 2.2.2. The idea is simple: libcommon.a contains stuff for the binaries libparseconf.la contains stuff for binaries and shared library Both are NOINST, automake understands perfectly our intentions. The rest is only a removal of the implicitly defined stuff. On top of the parallel build patch I got build success on all platforms

Hi all, I try to make a split-plot with poisson errors using glmmPQL, but I have some doubts about the model simplification. Look my system: Block = 3 blocks Xvar1 = 2 levels Xvar2 = 13 levels Yvar = Count data Response I need know about the behaviour of Var1, Var2 and interaction Var1:Var2. Look the levels: > levels(Xvar1) [1] "A" "B" > levels(Xvar2) [1]

Hello, I noticed that our SCEVUDiv does not simplify anything when the RHS is not a constant. Is that because there is a potential issue with division by zero being simplified? For instance, would it be okay to simplify: ((%i * %n)<nuw> /u %n) into: %i The way I see it, if %n is 0, then that division is undefined and we can "define it", at will, as being %i. Would that make

Hi Hal, I see. So LSR could theoretically counteract undesirable Ind Var transformations but it's not implemented at the moment? I think I've managed to come up with a small reproducer that can also exhibit similar problem on x86, here it is: https://godbolt.org/z/_wxzut As you can see, when rewriteLoopExitValues is not disabled Clang generates worse code due to additional spills,

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Mark Seaborn <mseaborn at chromium.org>wrote: > >> The PNaCl project has implemented various IR simplification passes that >> simplify LLVM IR by lowering complex features to simpler features. We'd >> like to upstream some of these IR passes to

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > To: "Paul Redmond" <paul.redmond at intel.com> > Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 11:13:06 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] parallel loop metadata simplification > > ----- Original Message ----- > >

I've noticed that there was an attempt to mitigate ExitValues problem in https://reviews.llvm.org/D12494 that went nowhere. Were there particular issues with that approach? -- Danila From: Philip Reames [mailto:listmail at philipreames.com] Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2019 02:05 To: Danila Malyutin <Danila.Malyutin at synopsys.com>; Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> Cc: llvm-dev

Hi, We recently found a testcase showing that simplifications in instcombine sometimes change the instruction without reducing the instruction cost, but causing problems in TwoAddressInstruction pass. And it looks like the problem is generic and other simplification may have the same issue. I want to get some ideas about what is the best way to fix such kind...

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Redmond" <paul.redmond at intel.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 10:06:51 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] parallel loop metadata simplification > > Hi Hal, > > On 2013-02-28, at 9:33