similar to: [LLVMdev] PR3913

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:

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 >

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 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

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 --------------

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

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

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

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, 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, 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>

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, >> >> This patch fixes PR4174. Two test-cases included: original one from >> bugzilla >> and a little bit complicated made be myself. > > I think you want isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute rather than >

Hello, This patch fixes pr5373, testcase of course attached. -Jakub -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 5373.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1540 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20091123/3f8fe7b3/attachment.obj>

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> >

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:

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; > +