similar to: [LLVMdev] PR4174

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 5:47 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 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 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 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 again :) After some break I send patch for PR4174. It was proposed some time ago, this one works with trunk. Regards -- Jakub Staszak -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pr4174-4.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 2932 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>

Hi, All CallInsts should return true for Instruction::mayHaveSideEffects() because functions are not guaranteed to halt. Inliner::runOnSCC calls isInstructionTriviallyDead to determine whether code can be dead code eliminated. isInstructionTriviallyDead returns true if Instruction::mayHaveSideEffects() returns false. A function that potentially runs forever based on its input but does not write

Does any real code benefit from dead code eliminating read-only functions? Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Reid Kleckner" <rnk at mit.edu> To: "Thomas B. Jablin" <tjablin at CS.Princeton.EDU> Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 9:38:47 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [LLVMdev]

Looks good. Pl. apply. Thanks, - Devang On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > Hello, > > This (quite big :-)) patch fixes PR3913. > > Regards > -- > Jakub Staszak > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >

Hello, Currently, llvm::isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute() always returns false for Call instructions. This has actual performance implications, because loop-invariant code motion makes this check, and will never hoist instructions that are not safe to speculatively execute. Unfortunately, there is currently no way to signal to LICM that a function is safe to speculatively execute. The

Hi Nadav, > I almost missed your email because you replied only to the list. I understand your argument. I think that my fix addresses a part of it. It says that instructions that do not return should not be removed. > The current implementation of mayReturn is to check the 'noreturn' function attribute. Are you suggesting to add a new attribute that is called 'mustreturn'

Fixed, patch attached. -Jakub On Aug 26, 2009, at 3:03 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Aug 25, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > >> Looks good. Pl. apply. > > Looks good to me, but please change the testcase to not use "lli" to > validate the test. "Execution" tests should be very rare. > > -Chris -------------- next part --------------

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

On Aug 25, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > Looks good. Pl. apply. Looks good to me, but please change the testcase to not use "lli" to validate the test. "Execution" tests should be very rare. -Chris

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; > +

Great, Monday works fine for me. We will discuss details once I will be in SF. Regards -- Jakub Staszak On Oct 5, 2010, at 11:56 PM, Mark Lacey wrote: > Hi Jakub, > > I live and work in SF. I might be interested in a quick beer or two in the early evening on the 11th. It's the only night I'm available from Friday through Tuesday. I work near the Financial District, so if you

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