Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "w_patch".
Did you mean:
c_patch
2011 Mar 14
1
[LLVMdev] IndVarSimplify too aggressive ?
...------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: test2.c
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110314/3e93ccc4/attachment.c>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: test2.ll.w_patch.arm
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 744 bytes
Desc: test2.ll.w_patch.arm
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110314/3e93ccc4/attachment-0001.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: test2.ll.wo_patch.arm
Type: appli...
2011 Mar 13
0
[LLVMdev] IndVarSimplify too aggressive ?
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Arnaud Allard de Grandmaison
<Arnaud.AllardDeGrandMaison at dibcom.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The IndVarSimplify pass seems to be too aggressive when it enlarge the induction variable type ; this can pessimize the generated code when the new induction variable size is not natively supported by the target. This is probably not an issue for x86_64,
2011 Mar 13
7
[LLVMdev] IndVarSimplify too aggressive ?
Hi all,
The IndVarSimplify pass seems to be too aggressive when it enlarge the induction variable type ; this can pessimize the generated code when the new induction variable size is not natively supported by the target. This is probably not an issue for x86_64, which supports natively all types, but it is a real one for several embedded targets, with very few native types.
I attached a patch to