similar to: -speculative-execution moving load before store

Hi, On 03/30/2016 11:38 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: > >> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:35, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com >> <mailto:mikael.holmen at ericsson.com>> wrote: >> >> i16 (divm16_pseudo …) >> >> stuff? >> >> I've tried >> (i16, i16 (divm16_pseudo i16:$src1, i16:$src2) >> and >> ((i16, i16)

Hi, My target has a special configuration register that many instructions read implicitly, configuring for example if an add instruction should saturate at over/underflow or not. Now, I have a problem where the MachineCSE removes a setting of this configuration register in a basic block, because MachineCSE::isPhysDefTriviallyDead can't find any uses of it in the basic block where

On 03/30/2016 11:51 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: > >> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:43, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 03/30/2016 11:38 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: >>> >>>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:35, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com >>>> <mailto:mikael.holmen at

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:43, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 03/30/2016 11:38 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: >> >>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:35, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com >>> <mailto:mikael.holmen at ericsson.com>> wrote: >>> >>> i16 (divm16_pseudo …) >>>

On 07/15/2019 04:01 AM, Mikael Holmén via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi, > > Same thing for me, as I described here: > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20190708/279184.html > > I think the problem is that the patch assumes that if sys/inotify.h > exists, then IN_EXCL_UNLINK is defined in it. > > But I think that there are old versions of inotify.h

Looks like I can't access git, documentation, bugs... I'm not sure if this email will actually go through. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20171009/e63b709a/attachment.html>

Hi, I'm trying to run the benchmark suite: http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html#test-suite-quickstart I'm doing it the lnt way, as described at: http://llvm.org/docs/lnt/quickstart.html I don't know what to expect but the results seems to be quite noisy and unstable. E.g I've done two runs on two different commits that only differ by a space in CODE_OWNERS.txt on my 12

Hi, On 03/30/2016 11:15 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: > >> On Mar 30, 2016, at 09:33, Mikael Holmén via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On my out-of-tree target I have an intrinsic >> >> def int_phx_divm_u16 : Intrinsic<[llvm_any_ty], >> [llvm_i16_ty, llvm_i16_ty], >>

Hi, In llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/cast.ll there is a test like this: target datalayout = "E-p:64:64:64-p1:32:32:32-p2:64:64:64-p3:64:64:64- a0:0:8-f32:32:32-f64:64:64-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:32:64- v64:64:64-v128:128:128-n8:16:32:64" [...] define <3 x i32> @test60(<4 x i32> %call4) { ; CHECK-LABEL: @test60( ; CHECK-NEXT: [[P10:%.*]] = shufflevector

Hi, On 08/07/2015 10:30 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: [...] > Depends. What is the exact declaration of format_long? > > > In the input .ll file it is: > > ; Function Attrs: minsize optsize > define internal i16 @format_long(i16* %res.8.par, i16 %base.9.par, > i32 %x.10.par) #3 { > > which is later changed somewhere in opt to: > > ;

Hi Quentin and llvm-dev, I've got a regalloc-related question that you might have an opinion or answer about. In our out-of-tree target we've been doing some bundling before register allocation for quite some time now, and last night a new problem popped up. What the fix should be depends on if this bundle is legal or not: BUNDLE %vreg39<imp-def,dead> *

Many thanks for the pointer! I missed that bug report since the title was about GVN. If there's interest in supporting this feature I can help since we've formalized most of BasicAA. I can easily verify if proposed changes are correct. (I'll release the code soon). Nuno Quoting Björn Pettersson A <bjorn.a.pettersson at ericsson.com>: > Hi Nuno. > I can't

On 08/07/2015 01:53 PM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote: >> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] >> On Behalf Of Mikael Holmén via llvm-dev >> Subject: [llvm-dev] load instruction erroneously removed by GVN > >> But between the load and the alloca there is also >> call fastcc void @format_long(i16* %_tmp30, i16 10, i32 10), !dbg !22 >>

Hi, Is there any easy way to run the verifier between each pass in opt if I do e.g. opt -O3 foo.ll -o foo.opt.ll ? If I add -verify after -O3 I get one invocation of the verifier first in the FunctionPass manager and then get two (!) runs of the verifier after all other passes are run. Then I saw the flag -verify-each which sounds promising, the help text says - Verify after each

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:35, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com> wrote: > > i16 (divm16_pseudo …) > > stuff? > > I've tried > (i16, i16 (divm16_pseudo i16:$src1, i16:$src2) > and > ((i16, i16) (divm16_pseudo i16:$src1, i16:$src2) > and a few other variants without managing to get it through. > > Thanks again, > Mikael Are you

Hi, On 01/22/2016 05:02 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 01:58:49PM +0100, Mikael Holmén via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm a litle bit puzzled by the TargetLowering::LowerOperation function, >> and what different callers of this function assumes about the returned >> value. >> > SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeOp() is your best

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com> wrote: > I also think it's weird that the replaceDbgDeclareForAlloca/rep > laceDbgDeclare/FindAllocaDbgDeclare methods return as soon as they've > handled one found dbg.declare, so if there are several, one is moved next > to the alloca, but the other ones are left somewhere. So maybe a fault

Hi, I'm having problems with the LoopIdiomRegognizer crashing on me with An asserting value handle still pointed to this value! UNREACHABLE executed at ../lib/IR/Value.cpp:695! If I remove AU.addPreserved<LoopInfoWrapperPass>(); or AU.addPreserved<AAResultsWrapperPass>(); everything goes well. The C-code triggering this is void foo(int a[10][10]) { int i, j,

Hi, I'm a litle bit puzzled by the TargetLowering::LowerOperation function, and what different callers of this function assumes about the returned value. In several places it seems like it is assumed that LowerOperation can return three kinds of values: * Something completely new. * SDValue() * The same SDValue as LowerOperation was called on. However in some places, e.g. in

On Tue, 2019-10-22 at 09:57 -0700, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev wrote: > On 10/22/2019 09:08 AM, Tom Stellard via Openmp-dev wrote: > > Hi, > > > > We're getting ready to start migrating to GitHub. SVN will be > > moved to read-only now and we'll > > begin the process of turning on GitHub commit access. I'll send an > > email when we're done.