similar to: [LLVMdev] benchmarks for global value numbering

I'm concerned that we're focusing on one side of this.  Let me point out a few concerns w/changing the canonical form here: 1. LICM does not know how to hoist or sink regions.  It does know how to hoist and sink selects. 2. InstCombine has limited support for triangles/diamonds, but fairly extensive support for selects. 3. EarlyCSE and GVN do not know how to eliminate fully

> On Aug 15, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 08/15/2018 02:38 PM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev wrote: >> I'm concerned that we're focusing on one side of this. Let me point out a few concerns w/changing the canonical form here: >> >> LICM does not know how to hoist or sink regions. It does know

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 6:41 AM, josey's...JJ frm kollam nw @ calicut.... <joseykollam at gmail.com> wrote: > i wish to develop llvm SSAPRE compiler optimization for my engineering > academic project .for,that i have a sample c++ program and its .ll > file.anyone have SSAPRE implementation in c++. if anyone have, please give > me that implementation immediately. In the old

Summary ======= I'm planning on adjusting SimplifyCFG so that it doesn't turn two-entry phi nodes into selects until later in the pass pipeline, to give passes which can understand phis but not selects more opportunity to optimize. The thing I'm trying to do which made me think of doing this is described below, but from the benchmarking I've done it looks like this is overall a

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 2, 2012, at 9:42 PM, Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Chapter 4 in http://llvm.org/pubs/2005-05-04-LattnerPHDThesis.html >> compares the precision of alias analysis in LLVM at that time. Does >> the latest LLVM still follow the similar results? I was also

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote: > I am not sure how best to fix this. If possible, InstCombine's > canonicalization shouldn't hide arithmetic progressions behind bit masks. The entire concept of cleverly converting arithmetic to bit masks seems like the perfect domain for DAGCombine instead of InstCombine: 1) We know the

On 10/25/2017 12:10 PM, Evgeny Astigeevich via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi Chandler, > > I ran the LNT benchmarks and SPEC2k6.train on AArch64 Cortex-A57. I > used revisions: Clang 316561, LLVM 316563. > > Options: -O3 -mcpu=cortex-a57 -fomit-frame-pointer > -fexperimental-new-pass-manager > > Regressions: execution time increase > > LNT > >

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Jan 3, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Jianzhou Zhao wrote: >> I see. I asked the question because LLVM provides several alias >> analysis, and I was wondering how to decide which one should be used >> for compiling most programs. >> >> I think the basicaa is the default one, but by looking

On Jan 3, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > I see. I asked the question because LLVM provides several alias > analysis, and I was wondering how to decide which one should be used > for compiling most programs. > > I think the basicaa is the default one, but by looking into its code, > it is not inter-procedural or context-sensitive (I am not 100% sure), > so does not

On 10/25/2017 12:32 PM, Evgeny Astigeevich wrote: > > Hi Hal, > > I quickly checked the execution profile. It is real. The code changed > significantly. A number of the hottest regions changed. I’ll compare IRs. > Thanks. Obviously a 1000% execution performance regression seems problematic. -Hal > JFYI FreeBench/fourinarow time graph: >

Hi, Chapter 4 in http://llvm.org/pubs/2005-05-04-LattnerPHDThesis.html compares the precision of alias analysis in LLVM at that time. Does the latest LLVM still follow the similar results? I was also wondering how the globalmodred-aa and scev-aa that were not discussed in the PhD thesis are compared with others? Thanks and Happy New Year! -- Jianzhou

On Jan 2, 2012, at 9:42 PM, Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > Hi, > > Chapter 4 in http://llvm.org/pubs/2005-05-04-LattnerPHDThesis.html > compares the precision of alias analysis in LLVM at that time. Does > the latest LLVM still follow the similar results? I was also wondering > how the globalmodred-aa and scev-aa that were not discussed in the PhD > thesis are compared with others?

i wish to develop llvm SSAPRE compiler optimization for my engineering academic project .for,that i have a sample c++ program and its .ll file.anyone have SSAPRE implementation in c++. if anyone have, please give me that implementation immediately. joseykollam at gmail.com josey @ 9895685353 elw technologies cochin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Look at this silly function: $ cat small.c unsigned f(unsigned a, unsigned *p) { unsigned x = a/4; p[0] = x; p[1] = x+x; return p[1] - 2*p[0]; } GCC turns this into straightforward code and figures out the 0 return value: shrl $2, %edi movl %edi, (%rsi) addl %edi, %edi movl %edi, 4(%rsi) movl $0, %eax ret LLVM optimizes the code: $ clang -O -S -o- small.c -emit-llvm define i32

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > I noticed the patch was already merged into the current LLVM language > reference manual with new memory instructions, fence, cmpxchg and > atomicrmw. Will the instructions be available in LLVM 3.0? Hopefully, yes; the implementation is in progress. -Eli

LLVMers, The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ I'm looking for members of the LLVM community to test the 2.1 release. There are 2 ways you can help: 1) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the appropriate llvm-gcc4.0 binary. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite (make TEST=nightly report). 2) Download

Another quick question. In ./bindings/ocaml/Makefile.ocaml, the configurations when ENABLE_OPTIMIZED<>1 are commented, which set -g flag to $(OCAMLC). Is that for back-compatibility to support OCaml < 3.10.0? On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Erick Tryzelaar <idadesub at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>>> In

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> I noticed the patch was already merged into the current LLVM language >> reference manual with new memory instructions, fence, cmpxchg and >> atomicrmw. Will the instructions be available in LLVM

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > Hi all, > > http://www.llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#BuildRecType suggests > us to define recursive types via opaque and refine. Since LLVM has > structural types, %rt = type { %rt* } and %rt1 = type { %rt* } should > be same structurally. I tested the following code, > > %rt =