Displaying 8 results from an estimated 8 matches for "worklistremov".
Did you mean:
worklistremover
2010 Oct 02
1
[LLVMdev] Illegal optimization in LLVM 2.8 during SelectionDAG? (Re: comparison pattern trouble - might be a bug in LLVM 2.8?)
...DEBUG(dbgs()<< "\nReplacing.8 ";
>> TheXor->dump(&DAG);
>> dbgs()<< "\nWith: ";
>> Tmp.getNode()->dump(&DAG);
>> dbgs()<< '\n');
>> WorkListRemover DeadNodes(*this);
>> DAG.ReplaceAllUsesOfValueWith(N1, Tmp,&DeadNodes);
>> removeFromWorkList(TheXor);
>> DAG.DeleteNode(TheXor);
>> return DAG.getNode(ISD::BRCOND, N->getDebugLoc(),
>> MVT::Other...
2011 Aug 26
0
[LLVMdev] Dead node removal in DAGCombiner
...etNode());
> 00976
> 00977 DAG.DeleteNode(N);
> 00978 continue;
> 00979 }
I suspect they could be removed. Probably a helper function should be added
for this and used all over the place. Also, the RAUW earlier can cause nodes
to be unified (due to CSE). Probably the WorkListRemover class should add nodes
to the worklist in the NodeUpdated method.
>
> Or is it one of the corner cases mentioned in SelectionDAGISel.cpp:644?
>
> 00644 // Skip dead nodes. DAGCombiner is expected to eliminate
> all dead nodes,
> 00645 // but there are currently some...
2011 Aug 26
2
[LLVMdev] Dead node removal in DAGCombiner
Is this piece of code in DAGCombiner::visitLOAD removing a dead node?
06155 if (N->use_empty()) {
06156 removeFromWorkList(N);
06157 DAG.DeleteNode(N);
06158 }
If it is, is there a reason it doesn't push its operands to the work
list as done in line 974-975?
00970 // If N has no uses, it is dead. Make sure to revisit all
N's operands once
2010 Sep 30
4
[LLVMdev] Illegal optimization in LLVM 2.8 during SelectionDAG? (Re: comparison pattern trouble - might be a bug in LLVM 2.8?)
...e() && Tmp.getNode() != TheXor) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "\nReplacing.8 ";
TheXor->dump(&DAG);
dbgs() << "\nWith: ";
Tmp.getNode()->dump(&DAG);
dbgs() << '\n');
WorkListRemover DeadNodes(*this);
DAG.ReplaceAllUsesOfValueWith(N1, Tmp, &DeadNodes);
removeFromWorkList(TheXor);
DAG.DeleteNode(TheXor);
return DAG.getNode(ISD::BRCOND, N->getDebugLoc(),
MVT::Other, Chain, Tmp, N2);
}
}
if...
2010 Oct 01
0
[LLVMdev] Illegal optimization in LLVM 2.8 during SelectionDAG? (Re: comparison pattern trouble - might be a bug in LLVM 2.8?)
...de() != TheXor) {
> DEBUG(dbgs() << "\nReplacing.8 ";
> TheXor->dump(&DAG);
> dbgs() << "\nWith: ";
> Tmp.getNode()->dump(&DAG);
> dbgs() << '\n');
> WorkListRemover DeadNodes(*this);
> DAG.ReplaceAllUsesOfValueWith(N1, Tmp, &DeadNodes);
> removeFromWorkList(TheXor);
> DAG.DeleteNode(TheXor);
> return DAG.getNode(ISD::BRCOND, N->getDebugLoc(),
> MVT::Other, Chain, Tmp, N2);
>...
2010 Sep 29
0
[LLVMdev] comparison pattern trouble - might be a bug in LLVM 2.8?
On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote:
>
>> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers.
>>
>> I've defined comparison
>>
>> def NErrb : InstTCE<(outs I1Regs:$op3), (ins I32Regs:$op1,I32Regs:$op2), "", [(set I1Regs:$op3, (setne I32Regs:$op1, I32Regs:$op2))]>;
2010 Sep 29
1
[LLVMdev] comparison pattern trouble - might be a bug in LLVM 2.8?
On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote:
> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers.
>
> I've defined comparison
>
>
> def NErrb : InstTCE<(outs I1Regs:$op3), (ins I32Regs:$op1,I32Regs:$op2), "", [(set I1Regs:$op3, (setne I32Regs:$op1, I32Regs:$op2))]>;
>
>
>
>
> But then I end up having the following bug:
>
>
2011 Aug 27
3
[LLVMdev] OpenCL Backend
...> >> 00978 ? ? ? continue;
> >> 00979 ? ? }
> >
> > I suspect they could be removed. ?Probably a helper function should be added
> > for this and used all over the place. ?Also, the RAUW earlier can cause nodes
> > to be unified (due to CSE). ?Probably the WorkListRemover class should add nodes
> > to the worklist in the NodeUpdated method.
> >
> >>
> >> Or is it one of the corner cases mentioned in SelectionDAGISel.cpp:644?
> >>
> >> 00644 ? ? ? // Skip dead nodes. DAGCombiner is expected to eliminate
> >>...