similar to: [LLVMdev] [LLVM] LoopUnswitch + SwitchInst

I just want to update test/Transforms/LowerSwitch/feature.ll that already uses grep. It uses grep + count, probably due to shorter construction. -Stepan. Eric Christopher wrote: > > On May 24, 2012, at 12:12 AM, Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote: > >> Hi all. I found that if you want to use grep with escape characters in >> lit, you should pass it within the double slash (\\). Since

Hi Chris. There is no zero arrays created. Probably this patch is not optimal and I'll reworked it today. But the main idea is keep a single zero-item when ConstantAggregateZero was wrapped and return this zero item as result of getOperand call. Note that wrapper has no parent classes, it has very local and short lifetime (method body), it exists outside the LLVMContext and needed for

Hi, I have a general question on LoopUnswtich pass. Consider the following IR snippet: define i32 @test(i1 %cond) { br label %loop_begin loop_begin: br i1 %cond, label %loop_body, label %loop_exit loop_body: br label %do_something do_something: call void @some_func() noreturn nounwind br label %loop_begin loop_exit: ret i32 0 } declare void @some_func() noreturn After running

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Stepan Dyatkovskiy <stpworld at narod.ru>wrote: > I just want to update test/Transforms/LowerSwitch/feature.ll that > already uses grep. > It uses grep + count, probably due to shorter construction. > If you are touching such a test, please convert it to FileCheck. Use of 'grep' in tests is an endless source of problems, and we are

Hi all. Looking at test/Transforms/LoopUnswitch/preserve-analyses.ll, I found improper phi instruction at string #122: %call.i25.lcssa48 = phi i8* [ %call.i25, %if.then31.i.i ], [ %call.i25, %if.then31.i.i ] ; <i8*> [#uses=0] Is it trick or mistake? -Stepan.

Hi David, After merging we always remove body of "G" (function we want to merge with "existing" one). In case with "writeThunk" we could add such info for "G", but it would be just a single string: reference to first string of "G". Ideal way here, is to merge debug information itself, and provide "F" with information for "G"

Yep check out PR1324. Doing something like this would be a great improvement. -Chris On Jan 21, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Anton, in a solution without CAZ, isNullValue can just return true when it > sees the special "this ConstantArray is all zero" flag. So all the places that > now look for CAZ can just use isNullValue instead

Hi everybody. I found that there are some problems with symbol location in AsmParser. 1. We need to know where symbol was declared. 2. We need to know where symbol was defined first time. There are two ways: 1. Add helper table to the parser with additional symbol info. But it takes additional memory consumption. 2. Add user tag (void*) for MCSymbol object. As I understood MCSymbol can live

Now I see, that its to so trivial as I thought before. There are a lots of parser extensions that creates the symbols. And in each place we need insert add its location info. I also found that MCContext has several create symbols methods, but all these methods uses CreateSymbol private method. So I see two possible ways here: 1. To aggregate all GetOrCreate-like symbol methods inside the

Hi. I just want to know does anyone has the same problem or not. After running "make check-lit" tests are stopped at 61th percent (Linker tests). Each time it stops on different tests. Thanks. -- Regards, Stepan

Hi Chris. The main question is how to implement ConstantAggregateXXXXX::getOperand? Should it be empty collection, or it must return the item aggregated? -Stepan. 22.01.2012, 04:43, "Chris Lattner" <clattner at apple.com>: > Yep check out PR1324.  Doing something like this would be a great improvement. > > -Chris > > On Jan 21, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Duncan Sands

Hi Nick. Can you help me sort some things out in MergeFucntions pass. While I was working on MergeFunctions pass I got several questions. I hardly tried to find all the answers by myself, but there are still two questions without answer. It is about merging functions itself (not comparing). First question is: Why sometimes we use RAUW and sometimes replaceDirectCallers. Would you help me

Hi all, I propose simple improvement for MergeFunctions pass, that reduced its complexity from O(N^2) to O(log(N)), where N is number of functions in module. The idea, is to replace the result of comparison from "bool" to "-1,0,1". In another words: define order relation on functions set. To be sure, that functions could be comparable that way, we have to prove that order

Hi Stepan, This looks interesting! Some high-level comments: - Please post the patch untarred next time. Also, I'm not sure if it's typical to provide supporting documents in .doc format; while many of us probably have access to Word, a more portable and email-friendly format (like text, markdown or rst) is probably better. - Have you profiled this? What's the speedup? I

OK. Thanks. And if I removed "case 4:" for example. Need I scan all phi nodes and fix it, by removing one predecessor (if it exists) to switch's parent block? -Stepan. Nick Lewycky wrote: > Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote: >> Hi all. >> >> Looking at test/Transforms/LoopUnswitch/preserve-analyses.ll, I found >> improper phi instruction at string #122: >>

Hi all, Previous patch has been split onto series of small changes. On each stage (after each patch) MergeFunctions pass is compilable and stable. Please find patches in attachment for review. To apply all patches at once, use "apply-patches.sh" script as follows: 0. Place "apply-patches.sh" in same directory with patches. 1. cd <llvm-sources-dir> 2. "bash

Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote: > Hi all. > > Looking at test/Transforms/LoopUnswitch/preserve-analyses.ll, I found > improper phi instruction at string #122: > %call.i25.lcssa48 = phi i8* [ %call.i25, %if.then31.i.i ], [ %call.i25, > %if.then31.i.i ] ;<i8*> [#uses=0] > Is it trick or mistake? What's improper about it? The block may have two predecessors, both of which

Guys, you can exclude me (dyatkovskiy) from this list, since I reverted my changes in r162354. -Stepan. llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org wrote: > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder clang-native-mingw64-win7 while building cfe. > Full details are available at: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-native-mingw64-win7/builds/876 > > Buildbot URL:

Hi Stephan, I've been thinking about this a bit and have some more specific ideas, I'll write up a design and maybe implement it over the next few days. -Chris On Jan 21, 2012, at 11:50 PM, Stepan Dyatkovskiy <STPWORLD at narod.ru> wrote: > Hi Chris. The main question is how to implement ConstantAggregateXXXXX::getOperand? Should it be empty collection, or it must return the

On 27 October 2013 11:30, Stepan Dyatkovskiy <stpworld at narod.ru> wrote: > Hi Nick. > > Can you help me sort some things out in MergeFucntions pass. While I was > working on MergeFunctions pass I got several questions. I hardly tried to > find all the answers by myself, but there are still two questions without > answer. > > It is about merging functions itself