similar to: [LLVMdev] Proposal to disable some of DAG combine optimizations

I can't think of any workaround? this optimization eliminates so much information that if we want to retrieve back, it will take a lot of processing and may not necessarily be able to retrieve the lost information for all cases. Besides, why does the generic part of llvm have to force an optimization that is counter productive to some targets? If there are other phases that do the same

The code sequence: > store %tmp1, var > > tmp4 = add %tmp3 , %tmp1 > can happen even if you eliminate the specific dag combine in question. The real solution lies elsewhere. To me, this seems more like a register allocation problem. Evan On Mar 22, 2009, at 9:39 PM, Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com wrote: > I can't think of any workaround? this optimization eliminates

Remember, our target does not have registers like ordinary processors do. So register allocation is really not going to do much for us. What we have to do is to exploit the existing opportunities in the source code and try to generate code based on such opportunities. The dag combination in question is one such opportunity that is being destroyed by the optimization. You maybe right in that this

Disabling this optimization in the DAG combiner isn't going to eliminate the problem; instcombine, GVN, and maybe even others also happen to perform this optimization. You may find it more effective to look for ways for codegen to recover in these kinds of situations. Dan On Mar 19, 2009, at 10:38 AM, Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com wrote: > Some of the optimizations that the first

Hello R experts, I'd like to studentize a matrix (tmp1) by column using apply() function and skip some specific values such as zeros in the example below to tmp2 but not tmp3. I used the script below and only can get a matrix tmp3. Could you please help me to studentize the matrix (tmp1) without changing the zeros and generate a new matrix tmp2? Thanks, Joshua tmp1 [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4]

Hi, I have two problems regarding the llvm.stackrestore intrinsic. I'm running on 3.0, but a quick test on trunk also showed the same behavior. First problem: --------------- I have code like: tmp1 = call llvm.stacksave() tmp2 = alloca [do some stuff with tmp2] call llvm.stackrestore(tmp1) [some other stuff] tmp3 = call llvm.stacksave() tmp4 = alloca [do some stuff

I'm working on version 2.0 The assertion at line 2380 of LegalizeDAG.cpp fails when it is trying to lower the add with i16. assertion reads: assert(MVT::isVector(Node->getValueType(0)) && "Cannot expand this binary operation!"); I am trying to compile a very simple program as follows: short var; void foo(void) { Var++; } The input bytecode, (in addition to the

Hi, I'm using LLVM 2.7 right now, and I found "opt -std-compile-opts" has missed some opportunities for optimization: define void @spa.main() readonly { entry: %tmp = load i32* @dst-ip ; <i32> [#uses=3] %tmp1 = and i32 %tmp, -16777216 ; <i32> [#uses=1] %tmp2 = icmp eq i32 %tmp1, 167772160 ; <i1> [#uses=2]

Dear all I use R for Windows 2.3.1 on a fully updated Windows XP Home SP2 machine and I have two related regular expression problems. platform i386-pc-mingw32 arch i386 os mingw32 system i386, mingw32 status major 2 minor

On Sep 27, 2007, at 4:35 PM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> wrote: > I'm working on version 2.0 > The assertion at line 2380 of LegalizeDAG.cpp fails when it is > trying to > lower the add with i16. > > assertion reads: > assert(MVT::isVector(Node->getValueType(0)) && > "Cannot expand this

Hi, I want to clone a given function, and add an argument to it. I then want to add a call to that new function. I have a callInstruction CI, which I want to transform to call this new function, and to take a new argument. The code I added was as follows CI->getCalledFunction()->dump(); Function* DirectF = CloneFunction(CI->getCalledFunction());

On May 20, 2008, at 2:16 PM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com > wrote: > >> Ok, I'm not sure what issue you mean. Can you restate? > > I'm referring to your statement (below) where you say "there needs > to be > some attribute (or something) on foo". Ok. > What I don't understand is I >

Hey, as some of you may know we're in process of experimenting with LLVM in Gallium3D (Mesa's new driver model), where LLVM would be used both in the software only (by just JIT executing shaders) and hardware (drivers will implement LLVM code-generators) cases. While the software only case is pretty straight forward I just realized I missed something in my initial evaluation. That

In LegalizeDAG.cpp, truncating stores are custom-lowered in line 1314-1317: 1314 case TargetLowering::Custom: 1315 ReplaceNode(SDValue(Node, 0), 1316 TLI.LowerOperation(SDValue(Node, 0), DAG)); 1317 break; Is there a reason it doesn't check whether the SDValue returned from TargetLowering::LowerOperation is null before it replaces the

The following piece of IR is a fixed point for opt -std-compile-opts/-O3: --- target datalayout = "e-p:64:64:64-S128-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:64:64-f16:16:16-f32:32:32-f64:64:64-f128:128:128-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-s0:64:64-f80:128:128-n8:16:32:64" target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" ; Function Attrs: nounwind readonly define i32 @get32Bits(i8*

On May 27, 2008, at 3:33 PM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com > wrote: > Chris, > I see, so in deed the front-end sets the attributes on the declaration > of the called function; which in theory is also available to the > caller > through the CALL node. Right. > Now here is what I think: > I agree that 4 attributes are

From POSIXct to numeric and back with time zone I am running regressions on data which has time series with different time resolution. Some data has hourly resolution, while most has either daily or weekly resolution. Aggregation is used to make the hourly data daily, while liner interpolation is used to find daily data from the weekly time series. This data manipulation requires some careful

Hi Danny, Thanks for that :) However I've just updated the prototype patch to NewGVN and it didn't need any API changes - all I rely on is GVNExpression. Hongbin, I wanted to explain a little about what GVNSink can currently do, what it was designed for and hopefully how to make it handle your testcase. *Background* Common code sinking is more difficult to efficently do than one might

Dan Gohman wrote: > There certainly are wishlist items for TableGen and TableGen-based > instruction descriptions, though I don't know of an official list. > Offhand, > a few things that come to mind are the ability to handle nodes with > multiple results, Is there an official workaround, BTW? - Volodya

Hi Chris, please read below: > In many cases that is true, but for indirect calls (calls through a > function pointer) it isn't. > > > All that is needed is to add some kind of sign attribute to the > > definition of callee function which will be set by the front-end and > > eventually saved in Function class. > > Sure. Adding an attribute is what we need