similar to: LoopDeletion and use in unreachable block

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 2000 matches similar to: "LoopDeletion and use in unreachable block"

2017 Sep 30
2
About LoopDeletion and infinite loops ... again! (RFC?)
Hello! I read a bunch of discussions about the matter on this very mailing-list that are relatively recent or relatively old and I couldn’t find much agreement on the matter, so … here again :D LoopDeletion and infinite loops … Currently LoopDeletion bails if non-detectable trip count loops are encountered and that’s fine, there are languages where infinite loops without side effects cannot be
2017 Sep 30
0
About LoopDeletion and infinite loops ... again! (RFC?)
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Marcello Maggioni via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello! > > I read a bunch of discussions about the matter on this very mailing-list > that are relatively recent or relatively old and I couldn’t find much > agreement on the matter, so … here again :D > > LoopDeletion and infinite loops … > > Currently
2017 Sep 30
0
About LoopDeletion and infinite loops ... again! (RFC?)
On 09/29/2017 10:02 PM, Marcello Maggioni via llvm-dev wrote: > I see the usecase for mixed language compilation (that’s probably why you fancy something like the side-effect thing instead right?) It's also about not having parameterized semantics for the IR. I'd certainly find that undesirable. We could make it part of datalayout, or similar, but that has problems with
2017 Sep 30
4
About LoopDeletion and infinite loops ... again! (RFC?)
I see the usecase for mixed language compilation (that’s probably why you fancy something like the side-effect thing instead right?) BTW if the other proposal passes can we basically assume that if a loop doesn’t have the sideeffect intrinsic in it is then removable? That patch seems to suggest that in its current state llvm is mostly broken for languages that consider all infinite loops as
2017 Aug 01
2
X86PadShortFunction.cpp inserts noops twice
Hi, while taking a look at X86PadShortFunction.cpp I found that /// addPadding - Add the given number of NOOP instructions to the function /// just prior to the return at MBBI void PadShortFunc::addPadding(MachineBasicBlock *MBB, MachineBasicBlock::iterator &MBBI, unsigned int NOOPsToAdd) { DebugLoc DL = MBBI->getDebugLoc();
2018 Mar 13
2
[SCEV] Inconsistent SCEV formation for zext
This sounds fine to me (and sorry for the delay!). -- Sanjoy On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Chawla, Pankaj <pankaj.chawla at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Sanjoy, > > So what is the verdict on this issue? > > Thanks, > Pankaj > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chawla, Pankaj > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 11:12 AM > To: Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at
2018 Mar 13
1
[SCEV] Inconsistent SCEV formation for zext
Hi Pankaj, On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Chawla, Pankaj <pankaj.chawla at intel.com> wrote: > Thanks for the reply! > Would it be possible for you to implement this? I don't have cycles for this right now, but if you file a bug I can give this a shot when I have time later. Even in the best case this will have to at least wait until end of April because I'm leaving for a
2014 Jan 22
2
[LLVMdev] Why should we have the LoopPass and LoopPassManager? Can we get rid of this complexity?
As came up recently in other threads, loop passes really get in the way. Here are some of the ways: - There is only one Loop analysis pass - IVUsers. It seems unlikely that the loop nest walk is critical to computing this or preserving it. - Almost all of the things we think of as "required" and dependencies are actually *transforms* that canonicalize the form of a loop into particular
2017 Oct 04
7
Minimal glibc version supported by LLVM build
Hi All, The landed patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D38481 introduced the usage of CPU_COUNT defined in glibc sched.h header. I failed to find this symbol in sched.h of glibc version 2.5-24, so compilation just fails. /home/dolphin/merge-from-upstream-area/ws/pristine/lib/Support/Threading.cpp: In function 'unsigned int llvm::hardware_concurrency()':
2018 Mar 13
0
[SCEV] Inconsistent SCEV formation for zext
Hi Sanjoy, Thanks for the reply! Would it be possible for you to implement this? You know the codebase better than I do. Thanks, Pankaj -----Original Message----- From: Sanjoy Das [mailto:sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 1:34 PM To: Chawla, Pankaj <pankaj.chawla at intel.com> Cc: Maxim Kazantsev <max.kazantsev at azul.com>; Serguei Katkov
2010 Nov 24
0
[LLVMdev] how to eliminate dead infinite loops?
Andrew Clinton wrote: > Most of my programs contain loops that the LoopDeletion pass is unable > to remove. It appears that the following code in LoopDeletion.cpp:152 > is the culprit: > > ScalarEvolution& SE = getAnalysis<ScalarEvolution>(); > const SCEV *S = SE.getMaxBackedgeTakenCount(L); > if (isa<SCEVCouldNotCompute>(S)) > return
2010 Nov 23
5
[LLVMdev] how to eliminate dead infinite loops?
Most of my programs contain loops that the LoopDeletion pass is unable to remove. It appears that the following code in LoopDeletion.cpp:152 is the culprit: ScalarEvolution& SE = getAnalysis<ScalarEvolution>(); const SCEV *S = SE.getMaxBackedgeTakenCount(L); if (isa<SCEVCouldNotCompute>(S)) return Changed; So, LoopDeletion thinks my loops might be infinite so it
2018 Feb 26
2
[SCEV] Inconsistent SCEV formation for zext
Hi Sanjoy, >> I'm a bit apprehensive of adding more caching to solve problems created by caching; but if there is no way out of adding another cache, how about adding a cache that maps SCEV expressions to their simplified versions? Then we could do something like: I may be wrong but I think caching is not an issue in itself, but caching in the presence of self-recursion is. >>
2010 Nov 26
0
[LLVMdev] how to eliminate dead infinite loops?
On 11/25/2010 12:59 PM, Andrew Clinton wrote: > On 11/24/2010 06:55 PM, Owen Anderson wrote: >> On Nov 23, 2010, at 9:22 AM, Andrew Clinton wrote: >> >> >>> Most of my programs contain loops that the LoopDeletion pass is unable >>> to remove. It appears that the following code in LoopDeletion.cpp:152 >>> is the culprit: >>> >>>
2010 Nov 25
3
[LLVMdev] how to eliminate dead infinite loops?
On 11/24/2010 06:55 PM, Owen Anderson wrote: > On Nov 23, 2010, at 9:22 AM, Andrew Clinton wrote: > > >> Most of my programs contain loops that the LoopDeletion pass is unable >> to remove. It appears that the following code in LoopDeletion.cpp:152 >> is the culprit: >> >> ScalarEvolution& SE = getAnalysis<ScalarEvolution>(); >>
2010 Nov 24
0
[LLVMdev] how to eliminate dead infinite loops?
On Nov 23, 2010, at 9:22 AM, Andrew Clinton wrote: > Most of my programs contain loops that the LoopDeletion pass is unable > to remove. It appears that the following code in LoopDeletion.cpp:152 > is the culprit: > > ScalarEvolution& SE = getAnalysis<ScalarEvolution>(); > const SCEV *S = SE.getMaxBackedgeTakenCount(L); > if
2010 Nov 24
2
[LLVMdev] how to eliminate dead infinite loops?
On 11/24/2010 03:36 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > Andrew Clinton wrote: >> Most of my programs contain loops that the LoopDeletion pass is unable >> to remove. It appears that the following code in LoopDeletion.cpp:152 >> is the culprit: >> >> ScalarEvolution& SE = getAnalysis<ScalarEvolution>(); >> const SCEV *S =
2017 Oct 04
2
Minimal glibc version supported by LLVM build
Reverted: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL314922 On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:17 PM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: + Rui, the patch author Do we know what the oldest glibc which works with this patch is? For context, the most recent REHL 5 ships with glibc 2.5. REHL 6 ships with 2.12 and REHL ships with 2.17. I have evidence
2017 Sep 30
0
About LoopDeletion and infinite loops ... again! (RFC?)
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Marcello Maggioni <mmaggioni at apple.com> wrote: > I see the usecase for mixed language compilation (that’s probably why you fancy something like the side-effect thing instead right?) > That could be a reason, but it wasn't my main motivation. Basically I'm worried about having per-passes specific flags for non-debug purposes. Also, whether
2018 Mar 12
0
[SCEV] Inconsistent SCEV formation for zext
Hi Sanjoy, So what is the verdict on this issue? Thanks, Pankaj -----Original Message----- From: Chawla, Pankaj Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 11:12 AM To: Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> Cc: Maxim Kazantsev <max.kazantsev at azul.com>; Serguei Katkov <serguei.katkov at azul.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: RE: [SCEV] Inconsistent SCEV formation for