similar to: RFC: should CVP always narrow the width of lshr?

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > Thanks for the answers! The plan makes sense to me. > > Regarding phis, what about diamonds, e.g.: > > > define i32 @f(i32 %x) { > br .., label %bb0, label %bb1 > bb0: > %cmp = icmp sge i32 %x, 0 ; x > 0 > br i1 %cmp, label %bb2, label %bb3 > bb1: > %x2 = add nsw

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Joerg Sonnenberger" <joerg at britannica.bec.de>, "llvm-dev" > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:38:10 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] High memory use and LVI/Correlated Value > Propagation > On

Greetings: I'm in the situation where I'm trying to splash information picked off by an asterisk IVR into a Cisco call center environment. I'm under the impression that the ONLY way to do this is to setup socket connections with the Cisco "voice processor", or CVP, and send packets corresponding to GED-125. Cisco has a detailed 100+-page document detailing the internals of

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 04:28:03PM -0800, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 03:38:24PM -0800, Philip Reames wrote: > > > I don't think that arbitrary limiting the complexity of the search is the > > > right approach. There are

I'm looking at the bug (https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31181) which was triggered by my change to make CVP mark adds as no wrap (https://reviews.llvm.org/rL278220) and I'd like to have some broader discussion of the problem. In this bug CVP correctly marks an add as nuw basing on the loop latch check, but later loop rotation pass moves the add to a point before the check. In the new

Hi all, with the current trunk I have two major cases where clang needs more than 2GB memory for compiling programs with -O2. One is related to GVN and MemoryDependenceAnalysis and has a pending patch. The other is related to the Correlated Value Propagation and Lazy Value Information cache. Attached is a heap profile for one of the relevant test cases. Looking at the sources, I don't see any

Dear all, I've tried all sorts of variations discussed in "R graphics" by Paul Murrell, but I still can't understand how to write a drawDetails method for a class derived from a gTree. Below is a minimal, dummy example where two strings are plotted in two separate viewports. I require the creation of the strings to be evaluated inside the drawDetails function because my real

add object rules so that the division, remainder and friends get really build on sparc, patch from Fabio M. Di Nitto <fabbione@ubuntu.com>. reworked to apply on latest git tree. Signed-off-by: maximilian attems <maks@sternwelten.at> --- Has been since long in the Debian and Ubuntu klibc. diff --git a/klibc/arch/sparc/Makefile.inc b/klibc/arch/sparc/Makefile.inc index

Looks like LVI actually does have cases for max and min; would it be better to allow ValueTracking to use range analysis instead? - CL > On Aug 1, 2016, at 8:44 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > >> On 07/29/2016 07:08 PM, Carlos Liam via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Say we have this IR: >> >> %1 = icmp slt i16 %x, 0

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Many thanks for working on this! > SSI/e-SSA is the only way I'm aware of for doing efficient sparse > analyses, so I'm definitely in favor of adding support for it in LLVM! > > I read the discussion so far and did a cursory review of the patches, and > I have just a

I want to place four plots on a page, and I would like to have all four plots share a common title. I have tried the following code, but the title is centered over the fourth graph and not centered across all four plots. Does anyone have any suggestions? R 2.1.1 windows xp oldpar<-par(mfcol =c(1,4),ask=TRUE) plot(p,varp) plot(p,SEp) plot(p,CVp) plot(p,ppval) title(paste("P and 95%CI

Here are some clarifications for the reference manual. Please verify that my assumptions are correct. Shall I post a patch? Floating-point Constants: Add "The assembler requires the exact decimal value of a floating-point constant. For example, the assembler accepts '1.25' but rejects '1.3' because '1.3' is a repeating decimal in binary." Binary

On 2016-09-27 02:28, Philip Reames wrote: > On 09/20/2016 12:05 PM, Matti Niemenmaa via llvm-dev wrote: >> I posted some questions related to implementing inference of nsw/nuw >> flags based on known icmp results to Bug 30428 ( >> https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30428 ) and it was recommended >> that I engage a wider audience by coming here. The minimal context is

For those not following along, startingin r301379, Simplify* in InstructionSimplify now can just take a query struct instead of 8000 optional arguments. Nothing is really new since it used the same thing under the covers. I'm slowly converting the old uses away (deletion of the old APIs is a different question). Staring at most of them, i could just directly convert them using braced list

We're not actively using this, but from a design perspective I'm wondering if we should be using this or something like it.  At the moment, our various loop optimization assume mostly canonical input.  Some of the passes have been taught to deal with limited amounts of non-canonical-ism, but there's a strong code simplicity argument in favor of only handling canonical input and

On 12/17/2016 01:35 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev wrote: > First of all, sorry for the long mail. > Inspired by the excellent analysis Rui did for lld, I decided to do > the same for llvm. > I'm personally very interested in build-time for LTO configuration, > with particular attention to the time spent in the optimizer. > Rafael did something similar back in March, so

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > First of all, sorry for the long mail. > Inspired by the excellent analysis Rui did for lld, I decided to do > the same for llvm. > I'm personally very interested in build-time for LTO configuration, > with particular attention to the time spent in the optimizer. >

On 06/11/13 08:54, Arnold wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 5, 2013, at 7:39 PM, Frank Winter <fwinter at jlab.org > <mailto:fwinter at jlab.org>> wrote: > >> Good that you bring this up. I still have no solution to this >> vectorization problem. >> >> However, I can rewrite the code and insert a second loop which >>

I''ve the following situation (which actually works in Rails 2.3.8 and this is a result of the migration of our app to rails3): I have a partial which is rendered a few times (imagine tr''s in a table). On the clientside there''s a script that does a json request for a specific row (jQuery + ajax dataType: ''json'' and type: ''POST'') In

Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 5, 2013, at 7:39 PM, Frank Winter <fwinter at jlab.org> wrote: > > Good that you bring this up. I still have no solution to this vectorization problem. > > However, I can rewrite the code and insert a second loop which eliminates the 'urem' and 'div' instructions in the index calculations. In this case, the inner loop's trip