similar to: [LLVMdev] List archives not updating

Hi Stefanus, Thanks for verifying this. Could you patch this or should I open a new bug report and find a generic solution first? Cheers, Nicolas From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Stefanus Du Toit Sent: woensdag 1 april 2009 18:59 To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Shuffle combine On 1-Apr-09, at 12:42

Hi Nicolas, On 2-Apr-09, at 6:04 PM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Thanks for verifying this. Could you patch this or should I open a > new bug report and find a generic solution first? I don't have write access so the best I could do would be to submit a patch, and I'm crazy busy at the moment. I actually think the check I described below is fine and would fix this bug (but

For those curious about uses of LLVM, we just officially announced our adoption of LLVM in our products: http://www.rapidmind.com/News-Nov10-08-LLVM-OpenCL.php Thanks for all the support so far on here, we look forward to continuing to work with LLVM! -- Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> RapidMind Inc. phone: +1 519 885 5455 x116 -- fax: +1 519 885 1463

On 1-Apr-09, at 12:42 PM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi Stefanus, > > Thanks for the info. I still think it’s a bug though. Take for > example a case where the vectors each have four elements. The values > in Mask[] can range from 0 to 7, while HLSMask only has 4 elements. > So LHSMask[Mask[i]] can go out of bounds, no? Good point! One easy way to fix this would be to use:

Hi Stefanus, Thanks for the info. I still think it's a bug though. Take for example a case where the vectors each have four elements. The values in Mask[] can range from 0 to 7, while HLSMask only has 4 elements. So LHSMask[Mask[i]] can go out of bounds, no? Cheers, Nicolas From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Stefanus Du

Stefanus Du Toit wrote: > The llvm-dev archives (and other llvm/clang mailing list archives) on > the web don't seem to have any new messages since some time Monday > night. > It seems to be working for me. Does it work for you now? -- John T. > Stefanus > > -- > Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> > RapidMind Inc. > phone: +1

On Nov 10, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Stefanus Du Toit wrote: > For those curious about uses of LLVM, we just officially announced our > adoption of LLVM in our products: > > http://www.rapidmind.com/News-Nov10-08-LLVM-OpenCL.php I'm thrilled to read an official announcement of that! Do you use LLVM only for static code generation or are you also doing any late (e.g.,

Hello, We've run across the following missed optimization: in the attached loop (addind.c/addind-opt.ll) there's a lookup into an array (V) using an indirect index (coming from another array, WI[k]) offset by a loop- invariant base (l). The full addressing expression can be reassociated so that we add the offset l to V's base first, and then add the indirect part. This makes

From http://www.llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html#quickdejagnu : To run only a subdirectory of tests in llvm/test using DejaGNU (ie. Transforms), just set the TESTSUITE variable to the path of the subdirectory (relative to llvm/test): % gmake TESTSUITE=Transforms check On 17-Jun-09, at 1:33 PM, Aaron Gray wrote: > Does 'make check' allow just running on a particualar directory of

On 21-Jul-08, at 7:33 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Stefanus Du Toit > <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> wrote: >> 1) Vector shl, lshr, ashr >> > I have a rough draft of a patch for this that works reasonably well > for simple cases... I don't think I really have the time to finish it > properly, but I'll clean it up a bit and

On 31-Jul-08, at 2:38 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > On Jul 31, 2008, at 7:22 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: >> In the same breath I’d also like to kindly ask if someone could have >> a look at the reverse operations, namely trunk from 128 to 64 bit >> using movdq2q, and 128 to 32 and 64 to 32 using movd. This also >> seems related to Bug 2585. Thanks again. > > The operations

Hi Stefanus, I'm not if using MMX instructions when doing operations on 64-bit vectors is so terrible? With x86-64 you have double the registers, but it comes at the cost of longer instruction encodings. So there's probably no benefit using SSE. Or am I missing something? Cheers, Nicolas -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at

Hi Mon Ping, Generalizing shufflevector would be great. I have an additional suggestion below. On 29-Sep-08, at 11:11 PM, Mon Ping Wang wrote: > I am proposing to extend the shuffle vector definition to be > <result> = shufflevector <n x <ty>> <v1>, <n x <ty>> <v2>, <m x i32> > <mask> ; yields <m x <ty>> > > The

Hi Nicolas, On 1-May-09, at 6:32 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > I’ve located a regression that causes my project to crash. It’s in > revision 67979, where PointerIntPair is changed from storing the > integer in the upper bits instead of the lower bits. My project is > an experimental JIT-compiler in Windows. We're looking into a similar bug right now. We see the problem

On 30-Jan-09, at 6:14 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Stefanus Du Toit > <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> wrote: >> The computation of %base then becomes loop-invariant and can be >> lifted out. >> >> What's the best way to add this optimization to LLVM? > > Probably the best place is LICM itself... only loop

Hi Nicolas, On 1-Apr-09, at 7:34 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > I’m having some trouble understanding the following lines in > InstructionCombining.cpp, which possibly contain a bug: > > if (Mask[i] >= 2*e) > NewMask.push_back(2*e); > else > NewMask.push_back(LHSMask[Mask[i]]); > > When Mask[i] is bigger than the size of LHSMask it reads out of > bounds

On 9-Mar-09, at 12:14 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > GEP overflow is undefined, but this sentence means that *accesses* to > an array must be within its bounds. It is fine to GEP outside the > array as long as you readjust the pointer back before access. Thanks, that was my hope. Maybe this should be spelled out in the langref, especially since it's inconsistent with C, where merely

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> wrote: > The computation of %base then becomes loop-invariant and can be lifted out. > > What's the best way to add this optimization to LLVM? Probably the best place is LICM itself... only loop transformations are aware whether something is loop-invariant. Although, I'm not completely

I agree further generalization seems like a very good idea. But I'd like to see what Mon Ping proposed implemented first so we have a better idea of the implementation cost. Thanks, Evan On Sep 30, 2008, at 6:44 AM, Stefanus Du Toit wrote: > Hi Mon Ping, > > Generalizing shufflevector would be great. I have an additional > suggestion below. > > On 29-Sep-08, at 11:11

On 1-May-09, at 8:35 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > I still don't understand why this is a problem, but I decreased the > default to 2 bits. Please verify that this helps, I think I've figured out what's going on, and why no assertions are caused by this. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with User* pointer alignment per se (although I believe that could still