similar to: [LLVMdev] complex branching generation

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > LLVM seems to be generating way too complex of branching based on the > short-circuit optimization. The code in question is as follows: > > define void @ test_fc_while_and(float %x, float %y, float addrspace(11)* > %result) nounwind { > > entry: > > %tobool3 = fcmp une float

I have some LLVM IR after the optimization passes defined in createStandardModulePasses with the optimization level set to 3. It contains what appears to me to be an easily optimizable branch statement. In particular, note in the code below that at the end of the "loop" BasicBlock that there is a conditional branch where in the false case, it branches to the label

The thread here should help. http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-May/031624.html On May 28, 2010, at 6:35 AMPDT, Curtis Faith wrote: > I have some LLVM IR after the optimization passes defined in createStandardModulePasses with the optimization level set to 3. It contains what appears to me to be an easily optimizable branch statement. > > In particular, note in the code

On 12/17/2010 02:01 PM, Bruno Cardoso Lopes wrote: > Hi Richard, > >> You changes work for me also. I applied something similar to the Mips CG >> and they worked there also. Thanks again. > > I can't reproduce the same problem here for Mips using clang, could > you please attach the bitcode you used? > Thanks > Hi Bruno, This was the bitcode from a simple

> Hi Scott, > > Do you mean loop carried dependencies? There is some initial work on > dependence analysis, but it is still pretty young. We also have support for > dependence between memory operations that are not loop aware. > > -Chris I think the dependence analysis will have to be loop aware. For example: bb: %indvar = phi i64 [ 0, %bb.nph ], [ %indvar.next,

A larg program which worked with lme4/R about a year ago failed when I re-run it today. I reproduced the problem with the program below. -- When lme4 is not loaded, the program runs ok and fast enough -- When lme4 is loaded (but never used), the do.call fails with infinite recursion after 60 seconds. Memory used increases beyond bonds in task manager. -- I tested a few S3 based packages

A larg program which worked with lme4/R about a year ago failed when I re-run it today. I reproduced the problem with the program below. -- When lme4 is not loaded, the program runs ok and fast enough -- When lme4 is loaded (but never used), the do.call fails with infinite recursion after 60 seconds. Memory used increases beyond bonds in task manager. -- I tested a few S3 based packages

Hello, I've come across another example: I'm compiling with clang -S -emit-llvm -std=gnu99 -O3 clang version 2.9 (trunk 118238) Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Thread model: posix I take the code: int loops(int x) { int ret = 0; for(int i = 0; i < x; i++) { for(int j = 0; j < x; j++) { ret += 1; } } return ret; } and the

On 1 Oct 2010, at 13:35, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: > >> Bill Wendling wrote: >>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: >>> >>>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote: >>>> >>>>> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers. >>>>>

Bill Wendling wrote: > On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: > >> Bill Wendling wrote: >>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: >>> >>>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote: >>>> >>>>> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers. >>>>> >>>>> I've

When zig updated to llvm 5 we started hitting this assertion: zig: /home/andy/downloads/llvm-project/llvm/include/llvm/Support/Casting.h:106: static bool llvm::isa_impl_cl<To, const From*>::doit(const From*) [with To = llvm::Instruction; From = llvm::Value]: Assertion `Val && "isa<> used on a null pointer"' failed. I wonder if however this was caused by an

Hi, I have a question about ExtractLoop() in CodeExtractor.cpp. The sample code is a simple list traversal, as attached. The generated bitcode (from llvm-gcc -O1) is shown below. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- define i32 @walk(%struct.node2* %list2) nounwind { entry: %0 = icmp eq

On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: > Bill Wendling wrote: >> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: >> >>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote: >>> >>>> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers. >>>> >>>> I've defined comparison >>>> >>>> def

Can you please open a bug on bugzilla and attach the ir testcase? Your fix doesn't look right (just hiding the assertion failure) On Sep 17, 2017 10:45 AM, "Andrew Kelley via llvm-dev" < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > What do you think about this patch? > > --- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/NewGVN.cpp > +++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/NewGVN.cpp > @@

Hi, I'm working on live intervals and I'm curious about how LLVM typically would represent live info. Take the following case (after SimpleRegisterCoalescer): BB#3: derived from LLVM BB %bb.nph Live Ins: %a0_h Predecessors according to CFG: BB#2 %reg16500<def> = COPY %reg16499 Successors according to CFG: BB#4 BB#4: derived from LLVM BB %for.body21 Live Ins:

Hi Richard, > You changes work for me also. I applied something similar to the Mips CG > and they worked there also. Thanks again. I can't reproduce the same problem here for Mips using clang, could you please attach the bitcode you used? Thanks -- Bruno Cardoso Lopes http://www.brunocardoso.cc

Bill Wendling wrote: > On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: > >> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote: >> >>> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers. >>> >>> I've defined comparison >>> >>> def NErrb : InstTCE<(outs I1Regs:$op3), (ins I32Regs:$op1,I32Regs:$op2), "", [(set

On Oct 12, 2009, at 4:01 PM, Scott Ricketts wrote: > To be more specific, it would be helpful to have some utilities for > finding dependencies (true, output, and anti-). Where is a good place > to start for this kind of analysis? Hi Scott, Do you mean loop carried dependencies? There is some initial work on dependence analysis, but it is still pretty young. We also have support

I did some research on patent claims on range and arithmetic coding. The original range code pdf presented in the UK by an ibm employee at the time asserts no patent claims what so ever. If there are patents I cant find em. I have the original paper in PDF if anyone cares to see it. Its a good candidate for encoding because browsing a few of the implememntations avaialable on line, I can roll my

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > You can't win here (believe me, i've tried, and better people than me have > tried, for years :P). > No matter what you do, the partitioning will never be 100% precise. The > only way to solve that in general is to pairwise query over the > partitioning. > > Your basic problem is