similar to: [LLVMdev] Latest build warnings

Hi folks, I'm hitting the below assertion failure when compiling this small piece of C code (repro.c, attached). My command line is: bin/clang --target=aarch64-linux-gnu -c -O2 repro.c clang is built from top of trunk as of this morning. It only happens at -O2, and it doesn't happen with the default target (x86_64). I tried to reproduce using just 'llc -O2' but didn't

Thanks for notifying me. Yes, this was a recent change. Taking a look now. On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Michael Kuperstein <mkuper at google.com> wrote: > +Sanjay, who touched this last. :-) > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Ismail Badawi (ibadawi) via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> I'm hitting the

David, Sanjay: ping? On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9? > > Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to > InstructionSimplify.cpp, not InstCombineSelect.cpp? > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: >> Hi

LGTM On Wednesday, July 27, 2016, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > David, Sanjay: ping? > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9? > > > > Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to > >

Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9? Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to InstructionSimplify.cpp, not InstCombineSelect.cpp? On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > Hi Hans - > > Yes, I think this is a good patch for 3.9 (cc'ing David Majnemer as code > owner). The functional change was

Sanjay: let me know if this is something that will apply to 3.9. Thanks, Hans On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Quick update - the bug existed before I refactored that chunk in > InstSimplify with: > https://reviews.llvm.org/rL275911 > > In fact, as discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D22537 - because we have a

Hi, I have worked a little on the PBQP register allocator, and it is quite clear (at least to me) that it is not even a serious alternative to RegAllocGreedy at the moment, due to the poor handling of spilling. As Arnaud wrote below, it is not optimizing spilling at all, but rather just spills anything that does not get an assignment. The result is a lot more spill/reload instructions than

On 11/8/11 4:34 PM, ret val wrote: > I still have the addRequired: > virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage&AU) const { > AU.addRequired<DominatorTree>(); > } > > The other line > DominatorTree *dt =&getAnalysis<DominatorTree>(); > Is for later use when I try to use PromoteMemToReg Isn't DominatorTree a

Awesome, that let me get far enough to trip: Assertion failed: (ResultPass && "Unable to find requested analysis info"), function getAnalysisID Is there something else I forgot? On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:47 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: > On 11/8/11 4:34 PM, ret val wrote: >> >> I still have the addRequired: >>         virtual

I still have the addRequired: virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<DominatorTree>(); } The other line DominatorTree *dt = &getAnalysis<DominatorTree>(); Is for later use when I try to use PromoteMemToReg On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Michael Ilseman <michael at lunarg.com> wrote: > Something's

Something's different here, earlier in the thread you said you had: void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<DominatorTree>(); } Now you have: void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { DominatorTree *dt = &getAnalysis<DominatorTree>(); I'm sort of confused, why did this change happen? I think the

Dear All, I'm having some problems using a function pass from a Module pass. My code is as follows: DominatorTree & domTree; ... Function &F = *I; // I is an interator from using Module::begin() ... domTree = getAnalysis<DominatorTree>(F); When I compile this code, I get the following error: /home/vadve/criswell/src/llvm22/include/llvm/Pass.h: In member function

Apologies if this has come up before. I couldn't find any previous discussion, but I did find this commit. I was wondering why LLVM cannot optimize this code (which GCC does optimize): int f(int *p) { int x; return p == &x; } it would seem that this must always return 0. (This occurs as a self-assignment check in the code I was looking at; I was hoping we could fold that check away.)

When compiling C code below for AArach64, I saw that shrink-wrapping didn't happen due to the very early uses of CSRs in the entry block. So CSR spills/reloads are executed even when the early exit block is taken. int getI(int i); int foo(int *P, int i) { if (i>0) return P[i]; i = getI(i); return P[i]; } It's not that hard to find such cases where

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: >> I was wondering why LLVM cannot optimize this code (which GCC does optimize): >> >> int f(int *p) { int x; return p == &x; } >> >> it would seem that this must always return 0. (This

I have been working on getting ELF object file writing working for the MBlaze backend. Currently, each supported backend calls ELFObjectWriter::createELFObjectWriter from within the backend's TargetAsmBackend::createObjectWriter method. The createELFObjectWriter method then creates a new backend specific ELFObjectWriter class (either X86ELFObjectWriter or ARMELFObjectWriter) by decoding a

<cc'ing llvmdev> On Nov 10, 2010, at 6:38 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Chris, in commit 12800 you introduced the following transform: > > Implement select.ll:test12* > > This transforms code like this: > > %C = or %A, %B > %D = select %cond, %C, %A > into: > %C = select %cond, %B, 0 > %D = or %A, %C > > Since B is often a

Hello, I'd appreciate it if anyone can tell me what the error message means and point out what I am doing wrong. Thank you. I am trying to use the result of the DominatorTree analysis in my ModulePass class as explained in the section "Writing an LLVM Pass". http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html#interaction I called the method "addRequired<DominatorTree>()"

Just shows me what I expect void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { DominatorTree *dt = &getAnalysis<DominatorTree>(); So I'm only using it for DominatorTree(so I can use PromoteMemToReg). Thanks On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > On 11/08/2011 07:33 PM, ret val wrote: >> >> Sorry to keep dragging

Hi, There are some warnings in the LLVM and clang code bases: ---------------------------- llvm[0]: Compiling RegAllocGreedy.cpp for Release+Asserts build /Users/filcab/dev/stuff/llvm/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/SmallVector.h: In member function ‘void<unnamed>::RAGreedy::calcLiveBlockInfo(llvm::LiveInterval&)’: /Users/filcab/dev/stuff/llvm/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/SmallVector.h:325: warning: