similar to: [LLVMdev] PR5373

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, 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

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 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 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:

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, 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 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 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, >>>>

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:

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 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 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, I was wondering about the case below. I tried to find any information in C standard, but I found nothing. In this case, variable "i" is uninitialized, but it is the _same_ value passed as an argument, so only of "a" or "b" should be printed. What I found is that with -O2: LLVM (trunk) prints both "a" and "b" GCC (4.2) prints both

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, 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>

On Nov 12, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Edward O'Callaghan wrote: > No, its up to them which backend they want to use. > Sounds like they think that GCC is super quick compared to LLVM. Looks > like another fud fart out of google to me. Edward, this is no place for comments like this. Evan > > 2009/11/12 Jon McLachlan <mclachlan at apple.com>: >> Any plans to make LLVM