similar to: Aplication slow after migration

Hi, everybody! I am having certain problems accessing my Samba domain. I have set up several XP SP2 clients to access a Samba 3.0.10 PDC running on a Debian testing server. Problem #1: Suddenly, the domain stopped working: it could not even be accessed browsing the network. After some investigation, I found that nobody could connect to the shares or log on to the domain, except one of the

Icmp sgt is correct. Note that "ugt x, 0" is the same as "x != 0" which is not what you want. -Chris On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Jonas Gefele <llvm.org at schrieb.de> wrote: > Hello, > > while writing a new LLVM backend I have observed that in some cases the > optimizer produces an "icmp sgt i32 %a, 0" where I would have expected an >

Hello, while writing a new LLVM backend I have observed that in some cases the optimizer produces an "icmp sgt i32 %a, 0" where I would have expected an "icmp ugt i32 %a, 0". For example when I feed "opt -O3 -S ..." (LLVM 2.9, Windows) with ------------------------------------------------------------------------ target datalayout = "E-p:32:32:32"

Hi Chris, > Icmp sgt is correct. while ugt would be wrong, I think sgt is too! For example, suppose %buf is 0 and %bufLen is ~0U. Then %add.ptr is ~0U, and %cmp is true, so control branches to %if.then. However in the optimized version %cmp is false and control branches to %if.end. The GEP does have an inbounds attribute, I'm not sure if that is relevant here. Ciao, Duncan. Note

While looking at what llvm writes for this testcase, I noticed that there is one redundant operation in resulting assembly. The second 'cmp' operation there is essentially identical to the first one, with reversed order of arguments. Therefore, it is not needed. This testcase is a simple integer comparison routine, similar to what qsort would take to sort an integer array. I think

> If we don't care about trying to optimize out overflow checks in > InstCombine, I'd go with moving the complexity to CGP. I think instcombine should optimize out overflow checks (as it does today) without introducing _with_overflow calls. Are there reasons why such an approach would not work? > However, I think > InstCombine is doing the right thing here by forming these.

Hi, This message is a result of a discussion of backend optimization for sub(max) pattern(https://reviews.llvm.org/D25987), which can be either converted to unsigned min-max or unsigned saturation instruction(if the target supports it). Currently these versions of the code produce different IR(and we need to manage both types in backend): (1.16) void foo(unsigned short *p, unsigned short max,

Hello I want to make some variables with the ifelse-function, but i don't know how to do it. I want to make these five variables; b2$PRRSvac <- ifelse(b2$status=='A' | b2$status=='Aa',1,0) b2$PRRSdk <- ifelse(b2$status=='B' | b2$status=='Bb',1,0) b2$sanVac <- ifelse(b2$status=='C' | b2$status=='sanAa',1,0) b2$sanDk <-

Hi, Can any llvm pass change simple return branch into select/return pair? For example: define i10 @mod_N(i10 zeroext %a) zeroext { entry: %tmp2 = icmp ugt i10 %a, -400 ; <i1> [#uses=1] br i1 %tmp2, label %cond_true, label %return cond_true: ; preds = %entry %tmp5 = add i10 %a, 400 ; <i10> [#uses=1] ret i10 %tmp5 return: ; preds = %entry ret

On 5/16/2017 6:30 AM, Sanjay Patel wrote: > Thanks for posting this question, Julia. > > I had a similar question about a signed min/max variant here: > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/106868.html > > The 2nd version in each case contains a canonical max/min > representation in IR, and this could enable more IR analysis. > A secondary advantage is

Does the nonnull parameter attribute give us information about subsequent uses of that value outside of the function that has the attribute? Example: define i1 @bar(i32* nonnull %x) { ; %x must be non-null in this function %y = load i32, i32* %x %z = icmp ugt i32 %y, 23 ret i1 %z } define i1 @foo(i32* %x) { %d = call i1 @bar(i32* %x) %null_check = icmp eq i32* %x, null ; check if null

Agradeceré me ayuden con la consulta: Cómo convertir un objeto data frame en una tabla csv que pueda a su vez ser convertida en un objeto geodata De antemano, gracias por la atención, -- Ricardo Bandin Llanos rbandin@udec.cl Estudiante - Magíster Cs. m. Pesquerías Universidad de Concepción, Región del Bio-Bio, Chile Celular: (0056-41) 97949957 [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi, Look at the following code: Look at the following C code seqence: unsigned char mainGtU ( unsigned int i1, unsigned int i2, unsigned char* block) { unsigned char c1, c2; c1 = block[i1]; c2 = block[i2]; if (c1 != c2) return (c1 > c2); i1++; i2++; c1 = block[i1]; c2 = block[i2]; if (c1 != c2) return (c1 > c2); i1++; i2++; .. ..

Hi, Recently 10% performance regression on an important benchmark showed up after we integrated https://reviews.llvm.org/rL318299. The analysis showed that rL318299 triggered loop rotation on an multi exits loop, and the loop rotation introduced code layout issue. The performance regression is a side-effect of rL318299. I got two testcases a.ll and b.ll attached to illustrate the problem. a.ll

Hi Eli, >>> Icmp sgt is correct. >> >> while ugt would be wrong, I think sgt is too! >> >> For example, suppose %buf is 0 and %bufLen is ~0U. Then %add.ptr is ~0U, and >> %cmp is true, so control branches to %if.then. However in the optimized version >> %cmp is false and control branches to %if.end. >> >> The GEP does have an inbounds

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 5:46 PM Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > The introduction of cleanup.cond block in b.ll without loop-rotation > already makes the layout worse than a.ll. > > > Without introducing cleanup.cond block, the layout out is > > entry->while.cond -> while.body->ret > > All the arrows are hot fall through edges which is

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:47 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Chris, > >> Icmp sgt is correct. > > while ugt would be wrong, I think sgt is too! > > For example, suppose %buf is 0 and %bufLen is ~0U.  Then %add.ptr is ~0U, and > %cmp is true, so control branches to %if.then.  However in the optimized version > %cmp is false and control branches

On Aug 2, 2011, at 8:53 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Eli, > >>>> Icmp sgt is correct. >>> >>> while ugt would be wrong, I think sgt is too! >>> >>> For example, suppose %buf is 0 and %bufLen is ~0U. Then %add.ptr is ~0U, and >>> %cmp is true, so control branches to %if.then. However in the optimized version >>> %cmp is

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 3:47:03 PM > Subject: [llvm-dev] analysis based on nonnull attribute > Does the nonnull parameter attribute give us information about > subsequent uses of that value

This snippet of IR is interesting: %sub.ptr.div.iS37_D = sdiv <2 x i64> %sub.ptr.sub.iS36_D, <i64 24, i64 24> %cmp10S38_D = icmp ugt <2 x i64> %sub.ptr.div.iS37_D, %splatInsMapS1_D.splat %zextS39_D = sext <2 x i1> %cmp10S38_D to <2 x i64> %BCS39_D = bitcast <2 x i64> %zextS39_D to i128 %mskS39_D = icmp ne i128 %BCS39_D, 0 br i1 %mskS39_D,