similar to: [LLVMdev] missed optimizations

On Mar 6, 2009, at 8:40 PM, John Regehr wrote: > It turns out to be pretty easy to use our random program generator to > search for missed optimizations by generating highly restricted > programs > that are equivalent to "return 0" or similar, and then checking that > LLVM properly evaporates the code. > > The result will be a lot of bug reports like this: >

I was wondering about general stability of glusterfs on 32 bit x86 Linux. I have it running without problems on some lightly used 32 bit systems, but this scares me a bit if I decided to use it in production[1]: While the 3.x versions of Gluster will compile on 32bit systems we do not QA or test on 32-bit systems. We strongly suggest you do NOT run Gluster in a 32-bit environment. I was

Greetings folks! I would like to enable globalsmodref-aa in the non-LTO pass pipeline so that it gets tested more and there are fewer differences between the two. For all of my benchmarks, this is performance neutral, but I'd appreciate others benchmarking this combination to see if they see any benefits or regressions. You can demo this mode easily: -mllvm -enable-non-lto-gmr Please let me

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > >> I think you're done when you get everything that you have that fits into >> a model of local transformations and that should be run to a fixed point. >> > > Sure, but to point out what you certainly already know, that's almost > every optimization you can think of

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:24 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:15 AM

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:15 AM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> ( >>> ​I came across this issue in

R gurus, Every so often(*) someone asks how to suppress scientific notation in printing, so I thought I'd give it a shot, but I need some help. The formatting decision is made(**) on line 286 of src/main/format.c : if (mF <= *m) { /* IFF it needs less space : "F" (Fixpoint) format */ where mF is the number of characters for "normal" printing and *m is the number

I am a grad CS student at Stanford and wanted to engage with EJ Park, Giorgis Georgakoudis, Johannes Doerfert to further develop the Machine Learning and Compiler Optimization concept. My background is in machine learning, cluster computing, distributed systems etc. I am a good C/C++ developer and have a strong background in algorithms and data structure. I am also taking an advanced compiler

Duncan, Your effort to improve the control of floating point optimizations in LLVM is noble and commendable. I'd like to make two points that appear not to have been raised previously in the discussion of your proposal to date: 1) Most compiler and back-end control of floating point behavior appears to be motivated by controlling the loss or gain of a few low bits of precision

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:49 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:24

Hi all, My name is Fahad Nayyar. I am an undergraduate student from India. I am interested to participate in GSOC under the project “Improve inter-procedural analyses and optimizations”. I have been using LLVM for the past 8 months. I have written various intra-procedural analysis in LLVM as FunctionPass for my course projects and research projects. But I’ve not contributed to the LLVM

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:24 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:15 AM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:38 AM,

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:49 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:24 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Hiroshi

Hi Kevin, > 1. Most compiler and back-end control of floating point behavior appears to be > motivated by controlling the loss or gain of a few low bits of precision on > a whole module scale. In fact, these concerns are usually insignificant for > programmers of floating-point intensive applications. The input to most > floating point computations have far lower

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Joerg Sonnenberger" <joerg at britannica.bec.de>, "llvm-dev" > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:38:10 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] High memory use and LVI/Correlated Value > Propagation > On

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:20 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 05/11/2018 08:40 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:49 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> >> wrote: >>

On 05/11/2018 08:40 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev wrote: > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com > <mailto:yamauchi at google.com>> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:49 PM Daniel Berlin > <dberlin at dberlin.org <mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org>> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May

Hi I was wondering if someone knows about any effort within the LLVM community to perform stack usage analysis per function similar to GCC's "-fstack-usage<http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gnat_ugn_unw/Static-Stack-Usage-Analysis.html>" option? In short, with fstack-usage, gcc prints out the maximum stack usage per function (in bytes) which it can determine as a) static (no

Hi Johannes - great we are engaging on this. Some responses now and some later. 1. When you say setup LLVM dev environment +. clang + tools etc, do you mean setup LLVM compiler code from the repo and build it locally? If so, yes, this is all done from my end - that is, I have built all this on my machine and compiled and run a couple of function passes. I have look at some LLVM emits from clang

On 07/14/2017 10:27 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov > <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote: > > > On 07/13/2017 06:40 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev wrote: >> Ah yes, it can only return one instruction and you need two. >> >> NewGVN could still handle it if instsimplify was