similar to: LoopSimplify pass prevents loop unrolling

On 6/30/2017 7:48 AM, Balaram Makam via llvm-dev wrote: > > Edit. Predecessor -> successor. > > *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf > Of *Balaram Makam via llvm-dev > *Sent:* Friday, June 30, 2017 10:47 AM > *To:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > *Subject:* [llvm-dev] LoopSimplify pass prevents loop unrolling > > Hi All, > >

On 6/30/2017 11:38 AM, Balaram Makam wrote: > > Thanks Eli, > > I was looking at this code which keeps track of loop headers but is > checking if the destination of branch is a loop header sufficient? > This prevents merging empty preheaders into the loop headers as well. > There isn't really any reason to collapse preheaders anyway; LoopSimplify will recreate them,

I will try to reduce a test case for the regression I found and will update. Thanks, Balaram From: Friedman, Eli [mailto:efriedma at codeaurora.org] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 2:54 PM To: Balaram Makam <bmakam at codeaurora.org>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] LoopSimplify pass prevents loop unrolling On 6/30/2017 11:38 AM, Balaram Makam wrote: Thanks Eli,

Thanks for the background on the concurrent memory model. So, is it sufficient that the loop entry is guarded by condition (cbz at top) for preventing the race? The loop entry will be guarded by condition if loop has been rotated by loop rotate pass. Since LICM runs after loop rotate, we can use ScalarEvolution::isLoopEntryGuardedByCond to check if we can speculatively execute load without

I think gcc is right. It inserted a branch for n == 0 (the cbz at the top), so that's not a problem. In all other regards, this is safe: if you examine the sequence of loads and stores, it eliminated all but the first load and all but the last store. How's that unsafe? If I had to guess, the bug here is that LLVM doesn't want to hoist the load over the condition (which it is right

that looks like a different fix. The case mentioned by Easwaran is class A{ int foo () { return 1; } ... }; where 'foo' is not explicitly declared with 'inline' keyword. David On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Balaram Makam <bmakam at codeaurora.org> wrote: > AFAIK, this was fixed in r233817. > > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of Easwaran Raman > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 9:54 AM > To: Xinliang David Li > Cc: <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> List > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Inline hint for methods defined in-class > > Ping. > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:13 PM,

All, If we can speculatively execute a load instruction, why isn’t it safe to hoist it out by promoting it to a scalar in LICM pass? There is a comment in LICM pass that if a load/store is conditional then it is not safe because it would break the LLVM concurrency model (See commit 73bfa4a). It has an IR test for checking this in test/Transforms/LICM/scalar-promote-memmodel.ll However, I have

The method to identify functions with in-class definitions is one part of my question. Even if there is a way to do that without passing the hint, I'm interested in getting feedback on treating it at-par with functions having the inline hint in inline cost analysis. Thanks, Easwaran On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > The problem

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Robinson, Paul <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Easwaran Raman [mailto:eraman at google.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 1:27 PM >> To: Xinliang David Li >> Cc: Robinson, Paul; Xinliang David Li; <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> List >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Inline

Hi, we've implemented an indirect call promotion llvm pass. The design notes including examples are shown below. This pass complements the indirect call profile infrastructure http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-April/084271.html Your feedback and comments will be highly appreciated. Thanks, Ivan ============================================================================RFC:

Hi Tobias- The loop fusion you mention is the one in libquantum/cpu2006 ? Or something else in cpu2017 ? -Thx Dibyendu -----Original Message----- From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Tobias Grosser via llvm-dev Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 10:10 AM To: renau at uncore.io; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Heroic LLVM optimizations Hi

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Robinson, Paul <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Easwaran Raman [mailto:eraman at google.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 1:27 PM >> To: Xinliang David Li >> Cc: Robinson, Paul; Xinliang David Li; <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> List >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Inline

I am a professor at UC Santa Cruz, but I also do consulting a Huawei. Chris Lattner told me that I should post this in the llvm-dev. HiSilicon (Santa Clara office) is looking for some developer capable of implementing the "heroic optimizations" (http://llvm.org/devmtg/2015-10/slides/Gerolf-PerformanceImprovementsAndHeadroom.pdf) in LLVM. Focus on SPEC2006 but also looking at the

Sorry for misinterpreting, but what is the basis for the simple fact you mentioned? David On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Robinson, Paul <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Xinliang David Li [mailto:davidxl at google.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 2:17 PM >> To: Robinson, Paul >> Cc: Easwaran Raman;

Forgot to add that all experiments were done with '-O3 -m64 -fexperimental-new-pass-manager'. Graham Yiu LLVM Compiler Development IBM Toronto Software Lab Office: (905) 413-4077 C2-707/8200/Markham Email: gyiu at ca.ibm.com From: Graham Yiu/Toronto/IBM To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Cc: junbuml at codeaurora.org, xinliangli at gmail.com Date: 11/02/2017 05:26 PM Subject: [RFC]

I'll be interested in seeing the improvements. As a reference, this is what I get in an Intel 6700K when I compare gcc 5.4 (Ofast flto) vs published Intel results. 23x in libquantum, and over 40% in many benchmarks. I think that it is mostly from AoS vs SoA and loop transformations. 5.4

Hi Evgeny, I just realized that if these are compile-time errors I can help investigate on my end. Do you have something I can use to reproduce? Cheers, Graham Yiu LLVM Compiler Development IBM Toronto Software Lab Office: (905) 413-4077 C2-707/8200/Markham Email: gyiu at ca.ibm.com From: Graham Yiu/Toronto/IBM To: Evgeny Astigeevich <Evgeny.Astigeevich at arm.com> Cc:

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:35 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Easwaran Raman <eraman at google.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Robinson, Paul >> <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Easwaran Raman

Clang adds the InlineHint attribute to functions that are explicitly marked inline, but not if they are defined in the class body. I tried the following patch, which I believe handles the in-class definition case: --- a/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.cpp +++ b/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.cpp @@ -630,7 +630,7 @@ void CodeGenFunction::StartFunction(GlobalDecl GD, if (const FunctionDecl *FD =