Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] [PATCH] PR2218"
2009 Jul 23
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] PR2218
On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Jakub Staszak wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This patch fixes PR2218.
Very nice. Are you sure this fixes PR2218? The example there doesn't
have any loads in it.
> However, I'm not pretty sure that this optimization should be in
> MemCpyOpt. I think that GVN is good place as well.
Yes, you're right. My long term goal is to merge the relevant
2009 Jul 25
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] PR2218
Hello,
Sorry for my stupid mistakes. I hope that everything is fine now. This
patch fixes PR2218. There are no loads in example, however
"instcombine" changes memcpy() into store/load.
Regards,
Jakub Staszak
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pr2218-2.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 6525 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
2009 Sep 02
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] PR2218
Hello,
I fixed my patch as you asked. Sorry for the delay, I'd been working
on my SSU patch (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-August/025347.html
)
I hope that everything is fine now.
-Jakub
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pr2218-3.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 7511 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
2009 Aug 07
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] PR2218
On Jul 25, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Jakub Staszak wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sorry for my stupid mistakes. I hope that everything is fine now.
> This patch fixes PR2218. There are no loads in example, however
> "instcombine" changes memcpy() into store/load.
Hi Jakub,
Sorry for the delay, I'm way behind on code review. Generally if you
respond quickly, I'll remember
2009 Sep 02
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] PR2218
On Sep 2, 2009, at 1:07 AM, Jakub Staszak wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I fixed my patch as you asked. Sorry for the delay, I'd been working
> on my SSU patch (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-August/025347.html
> )
>
> I hope that everything is fine now.
Hey Jakub,
Thanks for working on this again, one more round :)
Please merge the three testcases into one
2009 Sep 02
1
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] PR2218
On Sep 2, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> Please merge the three testcases into one file. We added a new
> FileCheck tool which allows you to check for the exact sequence of
> instructions expected, which also allows the tests to be merged into
> one file.
>
> +/// MemCpyOpt::pointerIsParameter - returns true iff pointer is a
> parameter of
> +/// C call
2011 Apr 14
2
[LLVMdev] llvm instrinsic (memcpy/memset/memmov)and ConstantExpression with cast
Hi All,
I have a question on ConstantExpressions and llvm intrinsic memcpy/memset/memmove. I am using llvm-2.8 release. In one of the C programs that I am compiling using clang frontend, the call to memcpy instrinsic looks like the following
call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i64(i8* %tmp2, i8* bitcast (%struct.ta* @tret to i8*), i64 4, i32 4, i1 false), !dbg !19
The second argument to memcpy is
2011 Apr 15
0
[LLVMdev] llvm instrinsic (memcpy/memset/memmov)and ConstantExpression with cast
On 4/14/11 6:34 PM, Kodakara, Sreekumar V wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have a question on ConstantExpressions and llvm intrinsic
> memcpy/memset/memmove. I am using llvm-2.8 release. In one of the C
> programs that I am compiling using clang frontend, the call to memcpy
> instrinsic looks like the following
>
> call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i64(i8* %tmp2, i8* bitcast
2011 Oct 12
1
[LLVMdev] getting object from BitCastInst?
My pass is looking at StoreInsts acting on global variable that happen
to be function pointers. From these StoreInsts I would like to get
useful information(the function used if a direct assignment, function
pointer used, etc) from the getValueOperand() method. Looking through
several examples I see that this can return several things like:
GlobalVariable, Function, LoadInst or BitCastInst
2016 May 09
4
Some questions about phase ordering in OPT and LLC
Hi,
I'm a PhD student doing phase ordering as part of my PhD topic and I
would like to ask some questions about LLVM.
Executing the following command to see what passes does OPT execute when
targeting a SPARC V8 processor:
/opt/clang+llvm-3.7.1-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-15.10/bin/llvm-as <
/dev/null | /opt/clang+llvm-3.7.1-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-15.10/bin/opt
-O3 -march=sparc -mcpu=v8
2018 Sep 27
2
RFC Storing BB order in llvm::Instruction for faster local dominance
On 09/27/2018 12:24 AM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote:
On Sep 26, 2018, at 11:55 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com<mailto:rnk at google.com>> wrote:
As suggested in the bug, if we were to rewrite these passes to use MemorySSA, this bottleneck would go away. I rebased a patch to do that for DSE, but finishing it off and enabling it by default is probably out of scope for me.
2014 Nov 22
3
[LLVMdev] How to get the indices in an getelementptr Value?
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com
> wrote:
> Hi Qiuping,
>
> If I'm reading the IR correctly, what you have is a
> GetElementPtrConstantExpr [1]. It subclasses from llvm::Constant.
>
If you want the same code to handle GetElementPtrConstantExpr *and*
GetElementPtrInst, you can use GEPOperator.
>
> Thanks,
> --
2018 Dec 12
2
The bit pattern after stripPointerCasts()
Hi,
in a recent review [0], Florian Hahn helped me to realize something that
was rather surprising to me:
The widely popular and very useful function
llvm::Value::stripPointerCasts() can return a value with a different
bit pattern than the input.
Now, I think this should not be the case but I want the hear other
opinions. Before I go on, please not that there is at least one location
in
2018 Feb 06
2
6 separate instances of static getPointerOperand(). Time to consolidate?
LLVM friends,
I'm currently trying to make LoopVectorizationLegality class in Transform/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp
more modular and eventually move it to Analysis directory tree. It uses several file scope helper functions
that do not really belong to LoopVectorize. Let me start from getPointerOperand(). Within LLVM, there are
five other similar functions defined.
I think it's time to
2018 Feb 06
0
6 separate instances of static getPointerOperand(). Time to consolidate?
"Saito, Hideki via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
> LLVM friends,
>
> I'm currently trying to make LoopVectorizationLegality class in
> Transform/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp more modular and eventually move
> it to Analysis directory tree. It uses several file scope helper
> functions that do not really belong to LoopVectorize. Let me start
2018 Dec 14
2
The bit pattern after stripPointerCasts()
> On Dec 14, 2018, at 2:44 PM, Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>
> Do you have an opinion on which should be the default?
>
> -Hal
>
>
Not particularly. The current name sounds to me like it would strip any casts it possibly can. Maybe most uses should now be converted to a newly named stripTrivialPointerCasts?
-Matt
-------------- next part
2018 Feb 06
1
6 separate instances of static getPointerOperand(). Time to consolidate?
What LoopVectorize.cpp has are the following. Each function may have to have a separate consolidation discussion.
I'm bringing up getpointerOperand() since I actually found multiple instances defined/used.
DependenceAnalysis.cpp has isLoadOrStore(). LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp has getAddressSpaceOperand().
I'm sure there are others that might be worth discussing within this thread or a follow
2011 May 16
2
[LLVMdev] dyn_cast<Instruction *> returns NULL where it should return a valid instruction
I have the following prototype for a function:
void bkp_memory(char *, int);
Inside my LLVM IR, I have a callsite looks like the following:
tail call void @bkp_memory(i8* bitcast (i32** @P to i8*), i32 4) nounwind
When I try to obtain its 1st argument and check whether it is a valid
instruction, using:
Instruction *Inst = dyn_cast<Instruction *>(I->getOperand(0));
it gives me a
2020 Feb 10
2
RFC: Mark BasicAA as a CFG-only pass.
On 2/10/20 2:35 PM, Alina Sbirlea wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's a tentative patch of the changes for this: D74353
> <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74353>.
I suppose that, as expected, it's invalidated less often this way. Given
that it's generally stateless, does this really represent a cost savings?
-Hal
>
> Thank you,
> Alina
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 10,
2012 Nov 02
2
[LLVMdev] DependenceAnalysis and PR14241
On 11/02/2012 11:02 AM, Hal Finkel wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es>
>> To: "preston briggs" <preston.briggs at gmail.com>
>> Cc: "Benjamin Kramer" <benny.kra at gmail.com>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
>> Sent: Friday, November