similar to: LLVM development trunk - code coverage - branch coverage missing

Thanks. I've rebased this patch on top of the recent LLVM (it was straightforward) and applied it in my fork. It seems to have solved one of the problems I was having. Would LLVM be interested if I submit the updated version for the review? -- Danila From: Philip Reames [mailto:listmail at philipreames.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 19:01 To: Danila Malyutin <Danila.Malyutin at

Hi, I noticed that the dead instructions collected when build vplan are invariant to different ranges of VFs since the original loop is not changed. Maybe DeadInstructions should be treated as a data member of LoopVectorizationPlanner and initialized by collectTriviallyDeadInstructions() in plan()? Cheers, Shixiong (Jason) Xu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

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 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,

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Shixiong Xu" <shixiong at cadence.com> > Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 11:05:35 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Cost model is missing in InstCombiner > +David M. > > On Aug 17, 2016, at 3:48 AM, Shixiong Xu

I have some programs crashing when I upgraded from clang 3.9.1 to clang 4.0.1. Debugging this I found the reason for the crash. This is happening in the following assembly fragment for a piece of code allocating a class object (size: 24 bytes) using operator new and then initializing it: 0x00002aaaafc145f3 <+35>: callq 0x2aaaafdf5f90 <operator new(unsigned long)>

On 8/8/19 2:03 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: Hi, First, as a high-level note, you posted a link to a Google doc, and at the end of the Google doc, you have a list of questions that you'd like answered. In the future, please put the questions directly in the email. For one thing, more people will read your email than will open your Google doc. Second, having the questions in the email should allow a

> There is a fundamental problem with the way that ivdep is defined by Intel's current documentation, at least for C/C++. As you note in your Google doc, it essentially says that the optimizer may ignore loop-carried dependencies except for those dependencies it can definitely prove are present. These are not semantics that any other compiler can actually replicate, and is not equivalent to

> > Probably there's an existing solution for both problems (subsequent > attempts and dnsbl): > > > >

Hal, Thanks for the reply. I am trying to understand the underlying concern. That means the inlining of a callee without unsafe-fp-math attribute set will block the unsafe optimization in its caller, right? Thanks, Yan From: Finkel, Hal J. [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 11:34 AM To: Yan Luo <yan.luo2 at synopsys.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re:

On 09/02/15 17:44, Emil Velikov wrote: > Hi Sedat, > > On 07/02/15 22:42, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> [ Please CC me I am not subscribed to mesa-dev and llvmdev MLs ] >> >> Hi, >> >> I already reported this when playing 1st time with my llvm-toolchain >> v3.6.0rc2 and mesa v10.3.7 [1]. >> The issue still remains in mesa v10.4.4. >> >> So,

On 11/04/2019 11:43, Marc Roos via dovecot wrote: > A. With the fail2ban solution > - you 'solve' that the current ip is not able to access you It is only a solution if there are subsequent attempts from the same address. I currently have several thousand addresses blocked due to dovecot login failures. My firewall is set to log these so I can see that few repeat, those

On 08/31/2015 03:59 PM, Matthias Braun wrote: > Looks to me like the alignment is specified in tablegen. From Target.td: > > class RegisterClass<string namespace, list<ValueType> regTypes, int alignment, > dag regList, RegAltNameIndex idx = NoRegAltName> > > X86RegisterInfo.td: > > def VR256 : RegisterClass<"X86", [v32i8,

Dear All, Thanks for the feedback. To clarify, this is for LLVM-related projects that are linking against the LLVM libraries. The feature for keeping our source code in arbitrary locations isn't something we need. If we can just drop our source code into llvm/projects (or some other designated LLVM subdirectory) and write LLVM-esque CMake files, that should be enough for projects that

On 19 June 2015 at 15:57, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > Hi, > > If you just want to *link* to LLVM, it is not clear to me why you are not > just relying on LLVM being built separately and have your project CMake > pointing to the llvm build directory and using llvm-config to populate the > linker argument? > > Best, > — > Mehdi > This is

Hello dev, I have a question about unsafe-fp-math function attribute. Currently LLVM merges this attribute for inlining with logical AND. That means if caller has this attribute set but callee has not, LLVM will reset this attribute on caller. But shouldn't we respect this attribute on caller? If caller wants to perform unsafe fp operation, any code that gets inlined should be allowed to do

I’ve been debugging SAFECode source code files, and line 170 in ArrayBoundCheckLocal.cpp has been causing the following compilation error: In file included from /Users/peterfinn/Desktop/llvm_trunk_2/projects/safecode/lib/ArrayBoundChecks/ArrayBoundCheckLocal.cpp:18: In file included from

All, Here are the latest patches to expreiment with gcov profiler for xen hypervisor. I have tested current patches on Intel i686. System Details: gcc version 4.3.3 (Ubuntu 4.3.3-5ubuntu4) gcov (Ubuntu 4.3.3-5ubuntu4) 4.3.3 Kernel 2.6.28-11-generic Distribution: Ubuntu jaunty 9.04 There are some design issue which i would like to highlight here: 1. To create gcov proc dir user /proc/xen, we are

All, Here are the latest patches to expreiment with gcov profiler for xen hypervisor. I have tested current patches on Intel i686. System Details: gcc version 4.3.3 (Ubuntu 4.3.3-5ubuntu4) gcov (Ubuntu 4.3.3-5ubuntu4) 4.3.3 Kernel 2.6.28-11-generic Distribution: Ubuntu jaunty 9.04 There are some design issue which i would like to highlight here: 1. To create gcov proc dir user /proc/xen, we are

Hi all, I was trying to generate lcov test coverage reports for xapian-core but got an out of memory error: $ lcov --capture --directory . --output-file xapian-core.info Capturing coverage data from . Found gcov version: 4.7.3 Scanning . for .gcda files ... Found 270 data files in . Processing bin/xapian-progsrv.gcda Out of memory! These are the steps I followed in xapian-core directory