similar to: [LLVMdev] gmake check failures on FreeBSD

On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:47 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Eric Kidd wrote: >> The duplicate loads appear at the top of the %regex6 and %regex2 >> blocks below. I've tried various alias analysis implementations >> either alone or in combination. > > LICM doesn't remove common subexpressions, also -load-vn doesn't > affect LICM. Try

Hi all, I have problem with specifying complex patterns in PPC Isel backend. I would like to fetch few instructions into one like that: def MatchPAT1 : Pat<(or (or (shl GPRC:$rA, (i32 imm:$imm24)), (and (shl GPRC:$rA, (i32 imm:$imm8)), 0xFF0000) ), (or (srl GPRC:$rA, (i32 imm:$imm24)), (and (shl GPRC:$rA, (i32 imm:$imm8)),0xFF00) )), (myinstr GPRC:$rA)>; That pattern

On Mar 17, 2006, at 7:54 AM, Eric Kidd wrote: > Unfortunately, this generates really weird code on the LLVM 1.6 > PowerPC backend: > > LBB_matches_1: ; regex6 > lbz r4, 0(r3) > LBB_matches_2: ; NodeBlock > rlwinm r5, r4, 0, 24, 31 > cmplwi cr0, r5, 98 > blt cr0, LBB_matches_4 ; LeafBlock > LBB_matches_3: ; LeafBlock1 >

The LLVM 1.4 Release is now out! Get it here: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/releases/ or read about it here: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/releases/1.4/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#whatsnew This release features a huge assortment of improvements in functionality, generated code quality, and compile times. Thanks to everyone who has helped make this release the best one yet. In addition to the changes

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Eric Kidd wrote: > Hello! I'm compiling code which uses pointers as iterators. For some > reason--probably a silly misunderstanding of the docs--I can't eliminate > duplicate pointer loads. I'll probably figure this out eventually, but if > somebody else sees the answer instantly, I certainly won't complain. :-) There are no stupid questions.

Hello! I'm compiling code which uses pointers as iterators. For some reason--probably a silly misunderstanding of the docs--I can't eliminate duplicate pointer loads. I'll probably figure this out eventually, but if somebody else sees the answer instantly, I certainly won't complain. :-) Here are the optimizers I'm running: opt -f -simplifycfg -dce -instcombine

Hi All, I'm putting together the announcement for the LLVM 1.6 release. Here is what I have so far. Because so much has been done, it is very likely that I have forgotten something. If you have done something that is not on the list, please send me a private email so I can add it (also, please tell me if I've made a mistake or miscredited something)! My next project is to start

The vector LLVA extension will not be merged into the 1.6 release branch? It will make me have to merge twice: one for 1.6 and one for vector LLVA. When do you plan to merge the vector LLVA to the main trunk, please? On 26/10/05, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > Hi All, > > I'm putting together the announcement for the LLVM 1.6 release. Here is > what I

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Eric Kidd wrote: >> I'm particularly confused by the rlwinm instructions that keep turning up >> in PowerPC output, and the double test against 98. I don't have a problem >> or anything; I'm just trying to figure out what's going on. :-) > > Ah! The backend is running -lowerswitch, which does a binary search of the > case labels

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:33 PM, John Regehr <regehr at cs.utah.edu> wrote: > Interesting. Do you happen to have some examples laying around? >> > > Sorry, no, I'll have to re-run. I felt that the select-heavy results were > sort of humorous and clever at first, but then just annoying. > > Except for decode-limited situations, in general decreasing the critical

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Brent Monroe wrote: > >>I'm trying to add the xadd instruction to the X86 back end. >>xadd r/m32, r32 >>exchanges r/m32 and r32, and loads the sum into r/m32. I'm >>interested in the case where the destination operand is a >>memory location. >> >>I've added the following entry to

> Interesting. Do you happen to have some examples laying around? Sorry, no, I'll have to re-run. I felt that the select-heavy results were sort of humorous and clever at first, but then just annoying. > Except for decode-limited situations, in general decreasing the critical path length is more important > than eliminating instructions. The critical path length is a

Hi All, Here are my notes for the LLVM 1.8 release, please send me feedback :). I'm sure I've forgotten and overlooked something, if so, please let me know! <Note: we're back to 3-month release cycle: yay!> ----- 8< ----- 8< ----- High Level Changes: *. Jim has finished enough support for DWARF debugging information that it is now enabled by default in

Hi Everyone, LLVM 1.6 is out! Get it here: http://llvm.org/releases/ or read about it here: http://llvm.org/releases/1.6/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#whatsnew This release is the culmination of a ton of great work by many people in the LLVM community. This release cycle has been much longer than any previous release cycle, and reflects that in its content. However, because we think that 3-4

LLVM 1.8 is available now! Download it here: http://llvm.org/releases/ Release notes here: http://llvm.org/releases/1.8/docs/ReleaseNotes.html This is a great new release with great new features and lots of refinements (better codegen, faster compiles, bugs fixed). One particularly nice feature of this release is that we're back to a regular 3-month release cycle, allowing users to have

Hi, I've bootstrapped llvm/clang from svn-trunk on powerpc-darwin8 (g++-4.0.1), and have the following test results to share. Summary below, full log at: http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~fang/sw/llvm/r146586-powerpc-darwin8-results.txt The only edits required were those I posted to llvm-commits yesterday (re: "some missing clang libs"). And I also edited LitConfig.py to point to

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Rackover, Zvi <zvi.rackover at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Sanjay, > > > > I agree we should also discuss **if** this canonicalization is beneficial. > > For starters, do we have a concrete case where we would benefit from > canonicalizing shuffles <-> truncates in LLVM IR? > > IMO, we should not count benefits for codegen