similar to: [LLVMdev] FoldingSetNodeID operations inefficiency

Hi Chris, Your were totally right with your suggestion. I have implemented the code that : a) does not merge multiple TokenFactor nodes in the DAGCombiner::visitTokenFactor(), if the resulting TF node would contain more than 64 operands. b) produces a bunch of TokenFactor nodes with at most 64 operands, instead of one huge TokenFactor in the SelectionDAGLowering::getRoot(). If we have n

Hi Chris, This is a good idea and I started thinking in that direction already. But what I don't quite understand the TFs, how TFs are formed and which rules they should obey to. For example now: > PendingLoads created by the SelectionDAGLowering::getLoadFrom and then copied into the > TokenFactor node by SelectionDAGLowering::getRoot called from the >

Hi, While profiling LLVM using my test-cases with huge MBBs, I noticed that FoldingSetNodeID operations (ComputeHash,insertion,etc) may become really inefficient for the nodes, which have very many operands. I can give you an example of what is meant by "very many". In my test-case (you can fetch it from here http://llvm.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=1275), which is just one HUGE MBB

guys, 1)i made a mistake in my post. the said TF node was created when Selected() was called in ADDC node. 2) the source code under test short a,b; void test() { a+=b; } 3)the DAG after ADDC was seleced: Select node: 0x4977a20: ch,glue = <<Unknown Machine Node #65419>> 0x4972bd0, 0x49731d0, 0x4976c20, 0x49730d0<Mem:LD1[@a](align=2)> Result node: 0x4977a20: ch,glue =

The current implementation is: void FoldingSetNodeID::AddInteger(unsigned long long I) { AddInteger(unsigned(I)); if ((uint64_t)(int)I != I) Bits.push_back(unsigned(I >> 32)); } (uint64_t)(int)I first truncates I to signed int, which causes the second cast to sign extend the value to 64 bits. The problem is that if the 31st bit of the original value is 1, the sign extended value

On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 04:51:15PM -0800, Chandler Carruth wrote: > While I've not reviewed the patch in too much detail, it looks > promising. Can you run some end-to-end benchmarks to make sure that > cache pressure in the full program or other variables not accounted > for in a micro-benchmark don't dominate performance? Specifically the > nightly tester includes a number

Hello, I've hit an assertion in SelectionDAG where we try to merge 2 loads that have the same operands but their MMO flags differ. One is dereferenceable and one is not. I'm not sure what the underlying issue here is: 1) MDSDNode with the same operands should have the same flags set on their respective MMO. The fact the flags differ when the opcode,types,operands and address-space are

Some additional info can be found at: http://murmurhash.googlepages.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MurmurHash http://www.codeproject.com/KB/recipes/hash_functions.aspx as well as in the patch description itself. Patch and benchmark attached. Gregory -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name:

Dear R users, Below I have written 4 functions CIT1, CIT2a and CIT2b and CIT3 which recode a variable CLD_ISCH into 3 new variables(T1 T2 T3), I wish to use T1, T2 and T3 based on the values of tf1 and tf2. (NOTE:- T2a is used to create T2 in a long winded manner due to my lack of programming experience) I then attach T1 T2 and T3 to a dataset KidneyT that contains other variables i wish to use

bounjour je dispose de differents commutateurs de LG (IP LDK) sur differents sites. je voudrais savoir comment je pourrais interconnecter ces differents IP LDK a un serveur Asterisk via IP ( ceci sous entend que chacun de ces commutateurs dispose d?j? d'une carte VOIBE). Mecri d'avance pour l'aide _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger :

Hi, I've looked through the posts but couldn't find a solution to this. I'd be really grateful if someone could help, I'd like to convert a data file of mutual information that is formatted as a matrix:             TF1    TF2    TF3    TF200... Gene1    0.0    0.2    0.2 Gene2    1.4    0.0    2.8 Gene3    0.3    0.6    1.7 Gene6000.... To a list: Gene1    TF1    0.0 Gene1   

Hi all, Our target does not have native support for 64-bit integers, so we rely on library calls for certain operations (like sdiv). We recently ran into a problem where these operations that are expanded to library calls aren't maintaining the proper ordering in relation to other chains in the DAG. The following snippet of a DAG demonstrates the problem. t0: ch = EntryToken t2:

Working on a target I added this pattern: def : Pat<(v4i64 (load xoaddr:$src)), (QVFCTIDb (QVLFDXb xoaddr:$src))>; which represents an actual load followed by a necessary conversion operation. The problem is that when this matches any TokenFactor that was attached to the load node gets attached, not to the inner load instruction, but the outer conversion operation. This is

Following up on my call schedule posting from yesterday, I am now trying to add edges from the call to the instruction before it. This seemed easiest to do in SelectionDAGBuilder but it is troublesome. A couple of questions: - How do I get the previous instruction that was translated? prior(CS.getInstruction()) in visitCall returns something invalid. When I try to call getValue on the

While I've not reviewed the patch in too much detail, it looks promising. Can you run some end-to-end benchmarks to make sure that cache pressure in the full program or other variables not accounted for in a micro-benchmark don't dominate performance? Specifically the nightly tester includes a number of real programs and machinery to measure total compile time. On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 7:09

On 2010-02-06 17:09, Gregory Petrosyan wrote: > Some additional info can be found at: > > http://murmurhash.googlepages.com/ > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MurmurHash > http://www.codeproject.com/KB/recipes/hash_functions.aspx > > as well as in the patch description itself. Patch and benchmark attached. > > +/// This version additionally assumes that 'len %

On Feb 7, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Gregory Petrosyan wrote: > On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 04:51:15PM -0800, Chandler Carruth wrote: >> While I've not reviewed the patch in too much detail, it looks >> promising. Can you run some end-to-end benchmarks to make sure that >> cache pressure in the full program or other variables not accounted >> for in a micro-benchmark don't

Good morning I am new with Astersik and I want to know how can I configure my LDK to communicate with an Asterisk server via SIP. I don't know how to procede and which configuration files should I be interested in. If anyone could help me, I would be extremely grateful thanks a lot in advance. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail : cr?ez votre

Rubin, Norman wrote: > I'm trying to install llvm on my windows development box and hit a > problem > I'm using cygwin > cygwin% gcc --version > gcc (GCC) 3.4.4 (cygming special, gdc 0.12, using dmd 0.125) > > I downloaded both the top of tree via svn > I ran ./configure > make > > make[1]: Entering directory `/cygdrive/c/llvm/lib/Support' >

I'm trying to install llvm on my windows development box and hit a problem I'm using cygwin cygwin% gcc --version gcc (GCC) 3.4.4 (cygming special, gdc 0.12, using dmd 0.125) I downloaded both the top of tree via svn I ran ./configure make make[1]: Entering directory `/cygdrive/c/llvm/lib/Support' llvm[1]: Compiling APFloat.cpp for Debug build llvm[1]: Compiling APInt.cpp