Displaying 9 results from an estimated 9 matches for "tmp26".
Did you mean:
tmp2
2010 Nov 07
0
[LLVMdev] Hoisting elements of array argument into registers
....i
%tmp9.i = mul i32 %a, %a
%.promoted2.i = load i32* %2, align 4
%tmp25.i = mul i32 %tmp18.i, 5
%tmp.i = sub i32 %.promoted1.i, %a
%tmp10.i = add i32 %tmp9.i, 1
%tmp11.i = sub i32 %tmp10.i, %tmp18.i
%tmp19.i = add i32 %tmp11.i, %.promoted2.i
%tmp23.i = sub i32 %tmp20.i, %tmp25.i
%tmp26.i = add i32 %tmp23.i, %tmp22.i
store i32 0, i32* %0, align 4
store i32 %tmp19.i, i32* %2, align 4
store i32 %tmp.i, i32* %1, align 4
store i32 %tmp26.i, i32* %3, align 4
br label %wf.exit
wf.exit: ; preds = %entry, %bb.nph.i
%5 = phi i32 [ %tmp2...
2010 Nov 06
2
[LLVMdev] Hoisting elements of array argument into registers
I am seeing the wf loop get optimized just fine with llvm 2.8 (and almost as good with head). I'm running on Mac OS X 10.6. I have an apple supplied llvm-gcc and a self compiled llvm 2.8. When I run
$ llvm-gcc -emit-llvm -S M.c
$ opt -O2 M.s | llvm-dis
I see that:
1. Tail recursion has been eliminated from wf
2. The accesses to sp have been promoted to registers
3. The loop has
2008 Jan 12
1
[LLVMdev] Labels
...pting to modify a parser generator to emit LLVM code instead of C.
So far the experience has been trivial, but I am now running into an error
regarding labels that I can't seem to solve.
Situation 1: A label is used immediately after a void function call (l6 in
this case):
<snip>
%tmp26 = load i32* @yybegin, align 4
%tmp27 = load i32* @yyend, align 4
call void @yyDo(void (i8*, i32)* @yy_7_body, i32 %tmp26, i32 %tmp27)
l6:
br label %l2
<snip>
I get the following error:
llvm-as: test.ll:578,0: test.ll:578: error: syntax error, unexpected LABELSTR,
expecting LOAD or STORE...
2011 Jul 17
0
[LLVMdev] Trying to optimize out store/load pair
...eral, i64 0, i32 7
br label %for.cond21.preheader
for.cond21.preheader: ; preds = %for.inc152, %entry
%indvar10 = phi i64 [ %indvar.next11, %for.inc152 ], [ 0, %entry ]
%tmp20 = mul i64 %indvar10, 3840
%tmp2227 = or i64 %tmp20, 1
%tmp2428 = or i64 %tmp20, 2
%tmp26 = trunc i64 %indvar10 to i32
br label %for.body25
for.body25: ; preds = %for.body25, %for.cond21.preheader
%indvar4 = phi i64 [ 0, %for.cond21.preheader ], [ %indvar.next5, %for.body25 ]
%tmp19 = shl i64 %indvar4, 2
%tmp21 = add i64 %tmp20, %tmp19
%a...
2011 Jul 17
0
[LLVMdev] Trying to optimize out store/load pair
...undliteral, i64 0, i32 7
br label %for.cond21.preheader
for.cond21.preheader: ; preds = %for.inc152, %entry
%indvar10 = phi i64 [ %indvar.next11, %for.inc152 ], [ 0, %entry ]
%tmp20 = mul i64 %indvar10, 3840
%tmp2227 = or i64 %tmp20, 1
%tmp2428 = or i64 %tmp20, 2
%tmp26 = trunc i64 %indvar10 to i32
br label %for.body25
for.body25: ; preds = %for.body25, %for.cond21.preheader
%indvar4 = phi i64 [ 0, %for.cond21.preheader ], [ %indvar.next5, %for.body25 ]
%tmp19 = shl i64 %indvar4, 2
%tmp21 = add i64 %tmp20, %tmp19
%arrayi...
2010 Sep 29
0
[LLVMdev] spilling & xmm register usage
...gt; %tmp7.i = fsub float 1.000000e+00, %tmp3.i
> %tmp8.i = fmul float %tmp7.i, 1.000000e+02
> %tmp9.i = fadd float %tmp5.i, %tmp8.i
> %tmp20.i = fmul float %tmp7.i, 1.000000e+01
> %tmp21.i = fadd float %tmp3.i, %tmp20.i
> %tmp23.i = fmul float %tmp3.i, 0x3F847AE140000000
> %tmp26.i = fmul float %tmp7.i, 0x3FA99999A0000000
> %tmp27.i = fadd float %tmp23.i, %tmp26.i
> %tmp32.i = fmul float %tmp7.i, 0x3FB99999A0000000
> %tmp33.i = fadd float %tmp23.i, %tmp32.i
> %call36.i = tail call float @llvm.sqrt.f32(float %tmp21.i) nounwind
> %tmp37.i = fmul float %tmp...
2010 Sep 29
3
[LLVMdev] spilling & xmm register usage
Hello everybody,
I have stumbled upon a test case (the attached module is a slightly
reduced version) that shows extremely reduced performance on linux
compared to windows when executed using LLVM's JIT.
We narrowed the problem down to the actual code being generated, the
source IR on both systems is the same.
Try compiling the attached module:
llc -O3 -filetype=asm -o BAD.s BAD.ll
Under
2006 Nov 13
0
[LLVMdev] post-dominance frontier
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, Ryan M. Lefever wrote:
Sorry I never responded to this:
> In the literature (see below for a reference), when a dominance frontier
> is computed, it is computed from a CFG that contains a dummy entry node
> and dummy exit node. Further, those dummy nodes are potential members
> of the (post-)dominance frontier for a given basic block. In LLVM, I
> could not
2006 Nov 10
2
[LLVMdev] post-dominance frontier
In the literature (see below for a reference), when a dominance frontier
is computed, it is computed from a CFG that contains a dummy entry node
and dummy exit node. Further, those dummy nodes are potential members
of the (post-)dominance frontier for a given basic block. In LLVM, I
could not figure out a way to determine if the dummy entry node is a
member of the post-dominance frontier of