similar to: [LLVMdev] What would LLVM need to do this optimization?

Hi, FreeBSD has recently upgraded their port from 0.99 to 1.0a4, and this has caused me an absolute nightmare of a situation. In a nutshell I replaced my conf with the -example, and modified almost nothing. I made some SSL certs and put them in place, left it with imap/pop/pam etc. Whenever users tried to connect to the remote address, cara.untaken.net, I would get: Oct 27 18:31:14 cara

Dear Chandler, > Please let me know if you have out-of-tree users of this logic At KernelGen we have an out-of-tree variation of CodeExractor called BranchedCodeExractor [1], which instead of taking a code region into a new function, does it conditionally: ORIGINAL_CODE; ->> if (extracted_code_function(args) != -1) { ORIGINAL_CODE; } I think many hybrid and parallelizing tools

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Dmitry N. Mikushin <maemarcus at gmail.com>wrote: > At KernelGen we have an out-of-tree variation of CodeExractor called > BranchedCodeExractor [1], which instead of taking a code region into a new > function, does it conditionally: > OK... as this is an out-of-tree branch of the code extraction, nothing I'm planning should negatively impact

Hi John, John Regehr wrote: > PredicateSimplifier is a pretty interesting pass, but it doesn't look > like opt invokes it at any standard -Ox level, and so I assume that > llvm-gcc also does not use this pass? If that is right, I'm curious > about why this is the case -- does it simply not provide enough code > speedup to compensate for the increase in compile time? I

instcombine can handle certain orders of "icmp"s that are "or"ed together: x != 5 OR x > 10 OR x == 8 becomes.. x != 5 OR x == 8 becomes.. x != 5 However, a different ordering prevents the simplification: x == 8 OR x > 10 OR x != 5 becomes.. %or.eq8.gt10 OR x != 5 and that can't be simplified because we now have an "or" OR "icmp". What would I

On 15 January 2015 at 10:49, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> > wrote: > >> Would it be wrong to generate the llvm.assume IR suggested below? in GVN? >> > > I think so... Because: > > One very small tweak you could make would be to add an llvm.assume inside

Here's an initial stab, but I'm not too happy about the temporarily adding new instructions then removing it because returning it will have it added back in to replace other uses. I also added a couple test cases pass with the new InstructionCombining changes (the old code only passes one of the added tests). Also, this change exposes some simplification for

> Predsimplify is believed to have bugs (it results in miscompiled > programs) and certainly isn't efficient (it was written before much of > include/ADT). Finally, predsimplify is likely to go away once I or > someone else writes a proper VRP pass. Whoever does this, I strongly encourage looking into using (or at least providing optional support for) the Apron library:

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > the big problem with Patterson's VRP is that it is expensive in terms of > compile time.  LLVM used to have some passes (ABCD, predsimplify) that did > this kind of thing, but they were removed essentially because their compile > time was too great for the goodness they brought. Any reason not to

On Feb 15, 2009, at 10:08 PM, John Regehr wrote: >> Predsimplify is believed to have bugs (it results in miscompiled >> programs) and certainly isn't efficient (it was written before much >> of >> include/ADT). Finally, predsimplify is likely to go away once I or >> someone else writes a proper VRP pass. > > Whoever does this, I strongly encourage looking

On Feb 8, 2011, at 1:15 AM, Mark Shannon wrote: > Nick Lewycky wrote: >> Duncan Sands wrote: >>> Here is a new and improved version that also does the following: if the >>> condition for a conditional branch has the form "A && B" then A, B and the >>> condition are all replaced with "true" in the true destination (similarly

Chris do you have a sense for how the definedness of signed overflow in LLVM would play out in the context of bounds check elimination? That is, would it cause lots of failure to eliminate checks that could be seen to be unnecessary at the C level? John On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Feb 15, 2009, at 10:08 PM, John Regehr wrote: > >>> Predsimplify is

when installing dotnet 2.0 the install crashes ive tried clearing winetricks cache but that doesn't seem to work here's the errors im getting any help is appreciated Code: lithium at lithium-laptop:~$ ./winetricks ------------------------------------------------------ Instaling .net 2.0 runtime. Can take several minutes. See http://wiki.winehq.org/MicrosoftDotNet for tips.

Howdy Howdy, I am trying to run Razor and RunUO on my Intrepid Ibex box, but am struggling. I am using 64 bit and wine 1.1.13. Specifically, I cannot get dotnet11 or dotnet20 to work (via winetricks). Any hints? I've tried various walk-throughs and read posts by the dozens, all without success. This is what it states: > Setting Windows version to win2k > Executing wine regedit

Hello All I try to install net Framework 2.0 but without success. During intallation process Registering file System.EnterpriseServices.dll I:"C:\windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\RegSvcs.exe" /bootstrapi 2: instalation crash > ------------------------------------------------------ > Instaling .net 2.0 runtime. Can take several minutes. See

Ubuntu 10.04 WINE 1.2-rc1 (Set to Windows XP version) Winetricks 20100424 Anyway, I try to install dotnet20 via winetricks on a clean WINE using Code: sh winetricks corefonts vcrun6 dotnet20 . That is what I read on another forum post from here. However, I consistently get the same error error when I get to the dotnet20 install. Code: Executing cp -f

Hi, I'm new at Wine and Ubuntu, so please have some patience with me. I've tried to install Sage Retail 2011 with wine but the installation fails. The Terminal shows this: Code: bruno at bruno-Aspire-1680:~/Transfer?ncias$ wine /home/bruno/Transfer?ncias/SetupSageRetail2011.exe fixme:advapi:DecryptFileA "C:\\windows\\temp\\IXP000.TMP\\" 00000000 fixme:advapi:LsaOpenPolicy

This patch set nukes all the dummy crtc mode_fixup implementations. (made on top of Daniel topic/drm-misc branch) Signed-off-by: Carlos Palminha <palminha at synopsys.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_crtc.c | 9 --------- 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_crtc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_crtc.c index 4ec80ae..627abc80 100644 ---

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Nicolas Capens wrote: > I'm hitting the following assert in PredicateSimplifier.cpp:961 : Hi Nicolas, The predsimplify pass is experimental at best, and should be removed at worst. I don't think it is going to be futher developed, so I'd suggest staying away from it. -Chris > > > assert(!CR.isSingleElement() && "Refusing to store

Hi Andrey, > On 21.02.2011 20:27, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote: >> My work is not part of the LLVM mainline yet. But I would be happy to >> contribute with the code of my range analysis implementation if it can help >> you in something else. > We were thinking of adding VRP to LLVM too, though we were mostly > interested in Patterson's approach (i.e. not