similar to: [LLVMdev] How to improve code generated for 'getelementptr' ?

As I am reading ?arima, only NA entries in the argument fixed= imports. The following seems to indicate otherwise: x <- arima.sim(model=list(ar=0.8), n=100) + (1:100)/50 > t <- 1:100 > mod1 <- lm(x ~ t) > > init1 <- c(0, coef(mod1)[2]) > fixed1 <- c(as.numeric(NA), 0) > > arima(x, order=c(1,0,0), xreg=t, include.mean=FALSE, init=init1, fixed=fixed1)

Hi fellows! I want to use the Rails.logger in my gem. I try the following code in my main gem-file. require ''rails/logger'' puts "init1" ::Rails.logger.info("hi") puts "init2" The funny thing is: It even don''t give me the output of puts in the stdout of the server! But if I remove the call to Rails.logger the puts are displayed in the

Hello everyone, please I need your help. To reproduce my problem I created simple pass for backends (TestPass.cpp in attached files). That pass I call from Mips backend in this way (MipsTargetMachine.cpp): bool MipsPassConfig::addPreRegAlloc() { addPass(createTestPass()); return false; } The problem becomes, when I am trying compile file ldtoa.ll (in attached files). Compiling

Hi, I have experimented with enabling the LoopVectorizer for SystemZ. I have come across a loop which, when vectorized, seems to have been poorly generated. In short, there seems to be a completely unnecessary sequence of shufflevector instructions, that doesn't get optimized away anywhere. In other words, there is a shuffling so that leads back to the original vector: [0 1 2 3

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 15:12 -0600, Sebastian Pop wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> > Thanks! Did you compile with any non-default flags other than -mllvm >> > -vectorize? >> >> I used -O3 and -vectorize, no other non-default

I’m not sure if it’s truly deterministic. It always gives the same results (so far) on my machine but I’m not sure that’s enough. My guess is it’s probably going to be deterministic on one machine but might well not be deterministic across environments. Like it might give varying results if cross compiled on different hosts, macOS vs intel Linux vs arm vs s390. (Obviously AVR is always a cross

We have a test that looks like this… define void @array16_store() { ; CHECK-LABEL: array16_store: ; CHECK: ldi [[REG1:r[0-9]+]], 204 ; CHECK: ldi [[REG2:r[0-9]+]], 170 ; CHECK: sts int.array+3, [[REG2]] ; CHECK: sts int.array+2, [[REG1]] ; CHECK: ldi [[REG1:r[0-9]+]], 187 ; CHECK: ldi [[REG2:r[0-9]+]], 170 ; CHECK: sts int.array+1, [[REG2]] ; CHECK: sts int.array, [[REG1]] ; CHECK: ldi

Renato, This looks like the right direction. Did you run it on the LLVM test suite to check if it finds new loops to vectorize ? Thanks, Nadav On Oct 21, 2013, at 8:23 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Nadav, Arnold, > > I managed to find some time to work on the pointer reduction, and I got a patch that can make "canVectorize()" pass. >

Hello, I found that GVN doesn't promote identical sequence of instructions in if and else branch to their common predecessors. For example, for the following code snippet pred: … br i1 %cmp, label %if, label %else if: %incdec.ptr.1 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %ptr, i64 1 %cast1 = ptrtoint i8* %incdec.ptr.1 to i64 … else: %incdec.ptr.2 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %ptr,

I'm a new LLVM developer contributing patches for the AVR platform and I'm trying to understand which parts of the code base are malfunctioning in my case. This LLVM IR... define hidden i32 @setServoAngle3(i32) local_unnamed_addr { entry: %1 = call i32 @myExternalFunction1(i32 %0, i32 119) ret i32 %1 } declare i32 @myExternalFunction1(i32, i32) Is being lowered to this assembly

There is a phi-node "%phi = phi i64 [%cast1, %if], [%cast2, %else]" in the common successor. The actual control flow is a bit more complex, but there is a common successor block, and %cast1 and %cast2 are the two values that the phi node in the common successor takes. Does the existence of the phi node affect optimization? Thanks, Taewook From: <mats.o.petersson at

Hi Nadav, Arnold, I managed to find some time to work on the pointer reduction, and I got a patch that can make "canVectorize()" pass. Basically what I do is to teach AddReductionVar() about pointers, saying they don't really have an exit instructions, and that (maybe) the final store is a good candidate (is it?). This makes it recognize the writes and reads, but then

Renato, can you post a hand-created vectorized IR of how a reduction would work on your example? I don’t think that recognizing this as a reduction is going to get you far. A reduction is beneficial if the value reduced is only truly needed outside of a loop. This is not the case here (we are storing/loading from the pointer). Your example is something like WRITEPTR = phi i8* [ outsideval,

Hi Dear All, This is a function which contains Covariance Ratio and Likelihood Distance values (CVRi, LDi). i want to compute the all row's values, that is run this function for nrow(X) times. The X and Y matrices are;

and by "right thing" i mean it can hoist if you want and it can prove it will not extend the live range. Note that VBE (very busy expressions) is a code size optimization only. It does not save time. On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > This GVN does not do that, this is correct. It is a very simple GVN. All > phi nodes are

Hi, I'm trying to get the following loop to vectorize (simple reduction): unsigned int sum2(unsigned int *a, int len){ unsigned int s = 0; for (int i = 0; i < len; i += 4) s += *a++; return s; } The loop fails to vectorize because SCEV could not compute the loop exit count. It appears SCEV cannot handle the non-unit increment of the loop counter. Is this a known limitation of

+Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com>, Master Regent of the Three <No, Two sir> JITs On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:31 PM Sean Ogden via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I needed to be able to update stub pointers for hot functions that get > recompiled in a lazy JIT that uses CompileOnDemandLayer. In order to do > this I added a method that allows pointers to

I noticed the following this week. No idea how long its been happening because I have not tested deleting folders hardly at all. Steps to reproduce: 1. Create a folder "NewFolder", click on it in thunderbird so an index dir is created: ls -ldi Maildir/.NewFolder/ 1504062 drwx------ 5 mcdouga9 egrstaff 4096 Nov 16 19:44 Maildir/.NewFolder/ ls -ldi

I needed to be able to update stub pointers for hot functions that get recompiled in a lazy JIT that uses CompileOnDemandLayer. In order to do this I added a method that allows pointers to be updated but does not expose any of the other internals of the COD layer. Does anyone have a cleaner way to do this? Has something to facilitate this already been added? Would it be possible to merge this

On 22 August 2013 13:24, Redmond, Paul <paul.redmond at intel.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to get the following loop to vectorize (simple reduction): > > unsigned int sum2(unsigned int *a, int len){ > unsigned int s = 0; > for (int i = 0; i < len; i += 4) > s += *a++; > return s; > } > > > The loop fails to vectorize because SCEV