similar to: [LLVMdev] Patch: Don't do unprofitable narrowing of loads.

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Matt Johnson <johnso87 at crhc.illinois.edu> wrote: > Hi Eli, > > On 07/27/2011 04:59 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Matt Johnson >> <johnso87 at crhc.illinois.edu>  wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>>     I'm writing a backend for a target which only supports 4-byte,

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: >> Can you explain why you chose the approach of using a new pass? >> I pictured removing LegalizeDAG's type legalization code would >> mostly consist of finding all the places that use TLI.getTypeAction

Hi Eli, On 07/27/2011 04:59 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Matt Johnson > <johnso87 at crhc.illinois.edu> wrote: >> Hi All, >> I'm writing a backend for a target which only supports 4-byte, >> 4-byte-aligned loads and stores. I custom-lower all {*EXT}LOAD and >> STORE nodes in TargetISelLowering.cpp to take advantage of

Hi all, I'm having some trouble understanding the following lines in InstructionCombining.cpp, which possibly contain a bug: if (Mask[i] >= 2*e) NewMask.push_back(2*e); else NewMask.push_back(LHSMask[Mask[i]]); When Mask[i] is bigger than the size of LHSMask it reads out of bounds on that last line. I believe the first line is there to try to prevent that but then it

Please test if r115571 has fixed it. Evan On Oct 4, 2010, at 5:00 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: > Bill Wendling wrote: >> On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: >> >>> Bill Wendling wrote: >>>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote:

Bill Wendling wrote: > On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: > >> Bill Wendling wrote: >>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: >>> >>>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote: >>>> >>>>> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers. >>>>> >>>>> I've

Hi Nicolas, On 1-Apr-09, at 7:34 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > I’m having some trouble understanding the following lines in > InstructionCombining.cpp, which possibly contain a bug: > > if (Mask[i] >= 2*e) > NewMask.push_back(2*e); > else > NewMask.push_back(LHSMask[Mask[i]]); > > When Mask[i] is bigger than the size of LHSMask it reads out of > bounds

On 1-Apr-09, at 12:42 PM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi Stefanus, > > Thanks for the info. I still think it’s a bug though. Take for > example a case where the vectors each have four elements. The values > in Mask[] can range from 0 to 7, while HLSMask only has 4 elements. > So LHSMask[Mask[i]] can go out of bounds, no? Good point! One easy way to fix this would be to use:

Hi Stefanus, Thanks for the info. I still think it's a bug though. Take for example a case where the vectors each have four elements. The values in Mask[] can range from 0 to 7, while HLSMask only has 4 elements. So LHSMask[Mask[i]] can go out of bounds, no? Cheers, Nicolas From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Stefanus Du

Hi Nicolas, On 2-Apr-09, at 6:04 PM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Thanks for verifying this. Could you patch this or should I open a > new bug report and find a generic solution first? I don't have write access so the best I could do would be to submit a patch, and I'm crazy busy at the moment. I actually think the check I described below is fine and would fix this bug (but

Hi Stefanus, Thanks for verifying this. Could you patch this or should I open a new bug report and find a generic solution first? Cheers, Nicolas From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Stefanus Du Toit Sent: woensdag 1 april 2009 18:59 To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Shuffle combine On 1-Apr-09, at 12:42

Hi All, I have faced a problem with TargetLowering::SimplifyDemandedBits with AND. Here is a example as following: /* C source code */ struct A { unsigned int a; unsigned char c1, c2; bool b1 : 1; bool b2 : 1; bool b3 : 1; }; int main () { struct A x[1]; x[0].b1 = false; int s = 0; s = x[0].b1 ? 1 : 0; <--- Here is problem. if (s != 0) __builtin_abort

I have a platform that I am targeting that has 64-bit general purpose registers but uses 32-bit pointers (ie, sizeof(void*) == 4) but unfortunately it also requires that the top 32-bits of the pointer value be clear. This sometimes becomes a problem with certain pointer calculations such as using a 32-bit negative value for indexing into an array can cause the upper bits to be set, generating

Hello Everyone, Trying to learn a little bit about data mining. I'm working on a text mining project that will attempt to predict whether cancer patients got a particular type of genetic testing. A subsequent stage then will be aimed at predicting what the results of that testing were. ? I've used the tm package to prepare my data and am planning to use rattle to do the actual data

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Matt Johnson <johnso87 at crhc.illinois.edu> wrote: > Hi All, >     I'm writing a backend for a target which only supports 4-byte, > 4-byte-aligned loads and stores.  I custom-lower all {*EXT}LOAD and > STORE nodes in TargetISelLowering.cpp to take advantage of all alignment > information available to the backend, rather than treat each

Hi All, I'm writing a backend for a target which only supports 4-byte, 4-byte-aligned loads and stores. I custom-lower all {*EXT}LOAD and STORE nodes in TargetISelLowering.cpp to take advantage of all alignment information available to the backend, rather than treat each load and store conservatively, which takes O(10) instructions. My target's allowsUnalignedMemoryOperations()

Hi all, recently when working with GlobalISel we have often encountered cases in the legalizer where instructions could not be narrowed because the narrowing code relies on G_UNMERGE_VALUES and therefore requires the source type to be a multiple of the narrow type. Often times these instructions can be widened without any problem to a fitting type. This has us writing legalization rules like

Hi Matt, thanks for responding. I left a couple of comments down below. Am 24.03.20 um 18:26 schrieb Matt Arsenault: > >> On Mar 24, 2020, at 12:24, Dominik Montada via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> recently when working with GlobalISel we have often encountered cases in the legalizer where instructions could not be

Hi, On 1/31/19 8:17 PM, Philip Reames wrote: > > On 1/31/19 11:03 AM, David Greene wrote: >> Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> writes: >> >>> Question 1 - Why do we need separate mask and lengths? Can't the >>> length be easily folded into the mask operand? >>> >>> e.g. newmask = (<4 x i1>)((i4)%y & (1 <<

On Sun, 5 Oct 2014 19:07:13 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > Now that virtio core ensures config changes don't arrive during probing, > drop config_enable flag in virtio net. > On removal, flush is now sufficient to guarantee that no change work is > queued. > > This help simplify the driver, and will allow setting DRIVER_OK earlier