similar to: [iovisor-dev] [PATCH RFC 3/4] New 32-bit register set

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Jakub Kicinski via iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev at lists.iovisor.org> wrote: > On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 22:03:47 -0700, Yonghong Song wrote: >> On 9/22/17 9:24 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> > On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:56:55 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:20:40AM +0100, Jiong Wang via iovisor-dev wrote:

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:20:40AM +0100, Jiong Wang via iovisor-dev wrote: > On 18/09/2017 22:29, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > On 09/18/2017 10:47 PM, Jiong Wang wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > >    Currently, LLVM eBPF backend always generate code in 64-bit mode, > > > this may > > > cause troubles when JITing to 32-bit targets. > > >

Hi, Jiong, The new patch looks good. I did some basic testing on net-next:samples/bpf and net-next:tools/testing/selftests/bpf and it works fine. All existing llvm unit tests are not impacted as well as expected. I have applied the patch to the trunk. Besides your other work to support 32bit abi, it would be interesting to see how new 32bit register can be used in 64bit architecture which may

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

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

On 06/16/2016 06:57 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev wrote: > On 06/15/2016 10:14 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev >> <iovisor-dev at lists.iovisor.org> wrote: >>> This same value for EM_BPF is being propagated to glibc, >>> elfutils, and binutils. >> >> great! >> Can

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

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev at lists.iovisor.org> wrote: > This same value for EM_BPF is being propagated to glibc, > elfutils, and binutils. great! Can you share the link to glibc and the other patches? > diff --git a/include/llvm/Support/ELF.h b/include/llvm/Support/ELF.h > index 352fd8a..fb8ff71 100644 > ---

On 09/18/2017 10:47 PM, Jiong Wang wrote: > Hi, > > Currently, LLVM eBPF backend always generate code in 64-bit mode, this may > cause troubles when JITing to 32-bit targets. > > For example, it is quite common for XDP eBPF program to access some packet > fields through base + offset that the default eBPF will generate BPF_ALU64 for > the address formation, later when

Dear R users, I have some environmental variables and I need to find the best combination of them in order to separate two main groups (coded 1 and 2). I have performed a discriminant analysis using the stepclass function as a method for selecting the most relevant environmental variables. The problem is that this function includes a parameter (start.vars) and my results change a lot when I

Hello. I've tried to add some simple arithmetic vector operations to the BPF backend available in the LLVM repo. Because I added in BPFRegisterInfo.td another RegisterClass (taken from the Mips backend): def MSA128W: RegisterClass<"BPF", [v2i64, v2f64], 128, (sequence "W%u", 0, 31)>; in order to support vector for example, ADD

Dear all, in my TestRegisterInfo.td file, I defined a register like this: class TestReg<bits<6> enc, string name> : Register<name> { let HWEncoding{5-0} = enc; let Namespace = "TEST"; } def D0 : TestReg<0x01, "d0">, DwarfRegNum<[1]>; but when I compile, the result I have in TestGenAsmMatcher.inc is this: case 'd': // 7

Hello. I come back to this older thread. Again, because of i64immSExt32 I receive TableGen error "Could not infer all types in, pattern!" (exact details written below). So far I'm not able to generate selection code with TableGen for the ADD_r* instructions, etc: def i64immSExt32 : PatLeaf<(imm), [{return

Airon, I don't think you have to find an English computer 'cause the following must work in your Chinese one :-) Let me explain. First of all, change your lines to xdata <- ckhdat$Adj..Close[1:1447] #names(ckhdwt.la8) <- c("w1", "w2", "w3", "w4", "w5","w6", "v6") note the # sign, i.e., DO NOT change the names

Thanks all. Amara, could you take a look? > On Nov 20, 2017, at 3:06 AM, Oliver Stannard <oliver.stannard at arm.com> wrote: > > Hi Quentin, > > I’ve raised: > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35359 <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35359> > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35360 <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35360> >

Preamble -------- While working on an IR-level optimisation completely unrelated to register allocation I happened to trigger some really strange register allocator behaviour causing a large regression in bzip2 in spec2006. I've been trying to fix that regression before getting the optimisation patch committed, because I don't want to regress spec2006, but I'm basically fumbling in

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:41:25AM +0200, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > Thinking about next steps - do we expect the 32b operations to clear the > > > upper halves of the registers? The interpreter does it, and so does > > > x86. I don't think we can load 32bit-only programs on 64bit hosts, so > > > we would need some form of data flow analysis in the kernel

--l4Siqd0eqV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, I run the following job. Please, compare the results of summary and table concerning berufl. From similar SPSS/PSPP runs, the result of table is correct. Did I misunderstand anything or is there a bug? What does the difference come from? What does '(other)' mean? What about the strange

Hi Oliver, Thanks for trying this. Could you file a different PR for each of the problem you found and reference the umbrella PR: http://llvm.org/PR35347? <http://llvm.org/PR35347?> Thanks, -Quentin > On Nov 17, 2017, at 8:17 AM, Oliver Stannard <oliver.stannard at arm.com> wrote: > > Hi Quentin, > > One more reproducer, this time with small (<64bit) values

Hi, Tom, Considering the severity of this bug, I would like to go ahead to push the fix into release_50 branch. The fix has been tested in the trunk and by various people as well and I will also make sure all BPF tests passed before the push. Thanks! Yonghong On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Y Song <ys114321 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Tom, > > I have a BPF backend bug which is