similar to: [LLVMdev] [LLVM, llc] TypeLegalization, DAGCombining, vectors loading

Yes. It doesn't works properly. I also read the your discussion in bug 1784: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=1784 I found that know Type and Vector Lagalization and in DAGCombining implicitly assumed that element size of MemoryVT is multiply of 8 bits. Thats the main reason why v2i5 works improperly with load/store. But I can't determine exactly what MemoryVT means... -Stepan.

Probably, I misunderstood MemoryVT purpose? Should it be a type that equal to original vector type (e.g. v2i5). Or it is a type of memory area for this vector (e.g. v2i8) ? -Stepan. Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote: > Hi all. The question about 'load' instruction. > When we promote > v2i5 = load<addr> ;<MemoryVT = v2i5> > to > v2i64 = load<addr> ;<MemoryVT

Hi Stepan, > Yes. It doesn't works properly. I also read the your discussion in bug 1784: > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=1784 > I found that know Type and Vector Lagalization and in DAGCombining implicitly > assumed that element size of MemoryVT is multiply of 8 bits. Thats the main > reason why v2i5 works improperly with load/store. But I can't determine exactly

Please ignore my concurrent post :-) Lets proceed in this branch. > do you understand what it means in the non-vector case? I'm beginning to understand it now. It means the type that should be in abstract VM memory. Isn't it? The main question about MemoryVT is: should it be original always (as it was defined in .ll) or not? About vectors with element size less than 8 bits. This

On Dec 13, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote: > Please ignore my concurrent post :-) Lets proceed in this branch. > >> do you understand what it means in the non-vector case? > I'm beginning to understand it now. It means the type that should be in > abstract VM memory. Isn't it? The main question about MemoryVT is: > should it be original always (as it

Dan, I completely agree with you. The vectorizer (or whoever generates this vector code) should be aware of the target instruction set and decide on the vectorization factor accordingly. When our vectorizer[1] decides on the vectorization factor, it takes into account the available instruction set, as well as the operations used in the program. For example, AVX1 focuses on floating point

Hi, Please find the attached patch for review. -Stepan. John McCall wrote: > On Oct 28, 2011, at 2:00 AM, Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote: >> I found next code when switch instruction differs: >> >> Engine.logf("right switch has extra case %r")<< CaseValue; >> >> Where CaseValue is a ConstantInt object. Looking how logf works I found >> that it

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

ping. -Stepan. Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote: > Hi, > > Please find the attached patch for review. > > -Stepan. > > John McCall wrote: >> On Oct 28, 2011, at 2:00 AM, Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote: >>> I found next code when switch instruction differs: >>> >>> Engine.logf("right switch has extra case %r")<< CaseValue; >>>

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 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"

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

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 Tobias, > I can't really see a way to combine our approach with your patch. What > are your thoughts? I think it is possible. Even more - we need to combine our efforts, in order to bring this pass into real live. I'have read your presentation file, and unfortunately read your patch only a little. How exactly you scan functions on 2nd stage? Could you explain the algorithm in

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

Hi all. Is there any way to look how my changes affected on compile and exec time, except looking at global test-suite compile and exec time? In another words is there any way to detect regression/improvement for particular tests? Thanks! -Stepan.

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. 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

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 all, Please find the updated patch in attachment: * Added some comments. * Fixed some typos. -Stepan Nick Lewycky wrote: > On 30 January 2014 01:27, Stepan Dyatkovskiy <stpworld at narod.ru > <mailto:stpworld at narod.ru>> wrote: > > Hello Sean and Tobias, > > Sean, > Thank you. Could you describe Nick's ideas in few words or give me >