similar to: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] PR4256

On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:27 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> > wrote: >> >> On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Eli

On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> > wrote: >> >> On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 7:31 PM, Eli

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:27 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at

On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> > wrote: >> >> On Aug 21, 2009, at 7:31 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>>

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 7:31 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at

Hello, This patch fixes PR4174. Two test-cases included: original one from bugzilla and a little bit complicated made be myself. It seems that LoopIndexSplit doesn't handle some cases, I'll try to send some patch this week. Regards -- Jakub Staszak -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pr4174.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size:

Hello, Yeah, sorry, you are right. My new idea is that only one ExitBB is found because Header ("for.body") is already marked as visited. I'm pretty sure that someone had a good reason to do this that way, but I can't find it out :) Dan, can you look at this patch? Thanks -Jakub -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name:

Hello, Simply removing that "return true" causes the code to search blocks outside of loops for side effects. That's not what the code is supposed to do. Dan On Nov 27, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Jakub Staszak wrote: > Hi, > > Because of this "return true" not every block was visited and only one ExitBB was found (instead of two). Thus, loop was optimized as a trivial

Hi, Because of this "return true" not every block was visited and only one ExitBB was found (instead of two). Thus, loop was optimized as a trivial one, which was wrong. -Jakub On Nov 24, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > Hello, > > I haven't studied this in detail, but at a first look this makes the > code inconsistent with the associated comments. Why

On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > The last bit here > > + if (LoopExitBB) { > + // It is possible that for both successors isTrivialLoopExitBlock() > + // returns different exit blocks. It means that the loop isn't trivial, > + // just quit then. > + if (LoopExitBB != LoopExitBB2) > + return false; > +

Hello, This patch fixes PR7052. Regards -- Jakub Staszak -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pr7052.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 3223 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100508/4648de5a/attachment.obj>

Hello, Fixed patch attached. Can anyone test it? Regards -- Jakub Staszak -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pr5373.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 5846 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100811/8c0c364b/attachment.obj> -------------- next part -------------- On Aug 6, 2010, at

Hello, This patch fixes PR4667. Regards, Jakub Staszak P.S. ping: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-July/024369.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pr4667.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 2148 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090806/27d1e11e/attachment.obj>

Hello again :) It's been some time since I sent you last patch, but here I'm again. I send the patch for PR5373. Regards -- Jakub Staszak -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pr5373.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 5913 bytes Desc: not available URL:

Hello, This (quite big :-)) patch fixes PR3913. Regards -- Jakub Staszak -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pr3913.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1451 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090824/e9d36629/attachment.obj>

The last bit here + if (LoopExitBB) { + // It is possible that for both successors isTrivialLoopExitBlock() + // returns different exit blocks. It means that the loop isn't trivial, + // just quit then. + if (LoopExitBB != LoopExitBB2) + return false; + } else if (Val) { + // if LoopExitBB == LoopExitBB2 pick the first one (true). +

Hello, I haven't studied this in detail, but at a first look this makes the code inconsistent with the associated comments. Why should the code continue recursing past a loop exit? Dan On Nov 23, 2009, at 4:43 AM, Jakub Staszak <kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > Hello, > > This patch fixes pr5373, testcase of course attached. > > -Jakub > <5373.patch> >

On Oct 10, 2009, at 7:48 AM, Jakub Staszak wrote: > Hello, > > I'm back :) Great! > This patch fixes pr3707. Can you explain a little more what this does? What is the intuition behind disabling this optimization? -Chris

Hello, I send a patch which fixes "svn: Inconsistent line ending style" error which I got when I was trying to import LLVM to my own SVN server. Regards -- Jakub Staszak -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: patch_ending.diff Type: application/octet-stream Size: 2540 bytes Desc: not available URL: