similar to: [LLVMdev] Question about ExtractLoop

Hi All, I’m currently working on a simple task which needs to transform loops into tail-recursive functions. I found the CodeExtractor class a handy helper to use, but later encountered a problem. Consider the following CU struct S { int a, b; }; int foo(struct S *s, unsigned n) {   struct S *next = s;   unsigned i;   for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) {     if (!s[i].a)      

Hello all; I have been writing this LLVM pass that extracts loops in a function and then duplicates the function so the loop is executed twice. The pass executes fine but the produced bit code does not behave correctly as it should (both the original and duplicated function in which the loop is extracted is called, but from the output it seems only one of them is executed.) Here is the source:

The following C code : #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> int TESTE2( int parami , int paraml ,double paramd ) { int varx=0,vary; int nI =0; //varx= parami; if( parami > 0 ) { varx = parami; vary = varx + 1; } else { varx = vary + 1; vary = paraml; } varx = varx + parami + paraml; for( nI = 1 ; nI <= paraml; nI++) { varx =

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 %x, 0.000000e+000 ; <i1> [#uses=1] %tobool24 = fcmp une float %y, 0.000000e+000 ;

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

I'm having an issue with the Stubs used by the JIT Compiler. I'm not sure if it's a bug or if I'm doing something incorrectly. I've got a long complicated function with the following basic blocks at the end of it (The complete .ll file is attached): falseBlock: ; preds = %__exp.exit340 ret int 617 codeRepl: ; preds = %__exp.exit340

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

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Johan Engelen via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I just found an optimization regression regarding simple > > dataflow/constprop analysis: > > https://godbolt.org/g/Uz8P7t > > > > This code >

Hi Dmitry, [FORTRAN code] > The difference between two versions is only in the way how inner > reduction loop is implemented. In first case it is explicit and in > second case - uses sum intrinsic, which is lowered to plain code by > DragonEgg. In first case Polly successfully detects parallel outer > loop, in second case - it can't. Thanks for the test

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > To: "Zinovy Nis" <zinovy.nis at gmail.com> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "James Molloy" <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" > <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014

Oops, sorry for the message title, making it more descriptive now... 2013/2/3 Dmitry Mikushin <dmitry at kernelgen.org> > Dear all, > > Yesterday, from the customer's code I observed relatively simple case, > where Polly is unable to detect parallelizable outer loop. Consider two > versions of Fortran routine: > > 1) > > subroutine filter(H, szh, X, szx, Y,

Hi, Here's another case, different in high-level, but similar in low-level. When Fortran allocatable array is defined in module, its actual dimensions are kept in internal structure. Loads originated from reading these dimensions confuse Polly on any use of this array. Attachments: 1) Sample Fortran source code (to be compiled with and without -DMODULE to see failing and working version,

David/Johan, I would love to claim victory, but I don't think that D34901 catches this case. However, I got interested and threw this together quickly: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35140. This does catch the below case. If people are interested I can add test cases and submit for formal review. FWIW, it does hit about 1/3 of all of the SPEC benchmarks. I haven't done any performance

Hi, I've been experimenting with the CodeExtractor class and have been running into a problem where the verifier pass fails with the error "function-local metadata used in wrong function" when I compile with debugging symbols enabled (-g flag). The issue seems to be that after extraction we have metadata that references variables that aren't allocated in the extracted function.

Hi, Attached is a patch I'm testing. It changes how "MachineFrameInfo::HasCalls" is calculated. Basically, the way it's calculated now is in PEI. And it only looks for frame adjustments (or inline ASM) to determine if the function has a call or not. This way is much more accurate and occurs much sooner. But it breaks this test:

Hi, My pass heavily relies on llvm::Loop's getSmallConstantTripCount method. However, I found that it doesn't work for some simple cases. In the following example, I can get the constant trip count of the outermost loop if statement "a[l] = a[l] + 1" is there. After commenting out this line, the returned constant trip count for that loop is 0. In my pass, I traverse the nested

Hello everyone, please I need your help. To reproduce my problem I created simple pass for backends (TestPass.cpp in attached files). That pass I call from Mips backend in this way (MipsTargetMachine.cpp): bool MipsPassConfig::addPreRegAlloc() { addPass(createTestPass()); return false; } The problem becomes, when I am trying compile file ldtoa.ll (in attached files). Compiling

It looks like this problem only exists on nested loops, ideas? On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > Is it not a good idea to try and extract loops that have multiple exits? > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I am trying to use ExtractLoop() but I am getting segFaults:

I everyone, i have a little problem with tklistbox,the " " character and Rcmdr. Please look at this code require(tcltk) tt<-tktoplevel() levels.list2 <-tklistbox(tt,selectmode="multiple",exportselection="FALSE", height=4, yscrollcommand=function(...)tkset(levels.list2.scroll,...))