similar to: [LLVMdev] pthread_equal multiply defined in .bc files

Hi, I recently looked into the LICM(Loop Invariant Code Motion) pass of LLVM and got a question about hoist load instruction to loop preheader. I would like to show two examples: Example 1: int func(int n, int *fp) { int i; int a[1000]; for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) { a[i] += *fp; // load from *fp pointer, no hoist } } Here, load *fp CAN NOT be hoisted to loop preheader. If replace *fp

Thank you very much for the quick reply. I was trying to confirm what I did was correct. I did a test that could enable a simple way of sc-preserving compilation by inserting fences for every load/store instruction before any opts, applying standard opts and then removing them after assembly code generation. It turned out that such sc-preserving compilation only caused ~4% slowdown for 18

Hi Yuelu, > After tracking the LICM pass, I find that both loads are loop > invariant, and canSinkOrHoist() also returns true; however the > difference is at Instruction::isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute(), > for load from function parameter pointer, it return false; with load > from a global var pointer, it returns true. As a result no hoist > happens for a load *fp: the function

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Yuelu, > >> After tracking the LICM pass, I find that both loads are loop >> invariant, and canSinkOrHoist() also returns true; however the >> difference is at Instruction::isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute(), >> for load from function parameter pointer, it return false; with load >>

On 10/17/12 9:21 AM, Duan, Yue Lu wrote: > Thank you very much for the quick reply. I was trying to confirm what I did was correct. I did a test that could enable a simple way of sc-preserving compilation by inserting fences for every load/store instruction before any opts, applying standard opts and then removing them after assembly code generation. It turned out that such sc-preserving

I am installing SPLASH(http://www-flash.stanford.edu/SPLASH/) benchmark codes on CentOS 4.6. And there is compile error during make.. Here is the error messages. Does it come from the gcc library? Should I update the gcc or other library? [root at localhost barnes]# make BARNES make: Warning: File `code.C' has modification time 6e+02 s in the future m4 -s -Ulen -Uindex

Hi, I have a question with the latest released LLVM which supports Fence Instruction as IR. Say if I intentionally place a Sequentially Consistent Fence Instruction somewhere in the code, then would the other transformation passes that applied later respect the Fence and do not perform any reordering across it? Going further, if I place an SC Fence immediately after every load/store instruction,

Hi, The paper is "A Case for an SC-Preserving Compiler" from PLDI 2011. What I did is following their "naive SC preserving compilation", that restricts the compiler to do any reordering for potentially shared load/store instructions. The paper says the resulting code running on x86 machine (SC-preserving binary run on non-SC hardware) will get 22% slowdown comparing with a

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:44:57PM +0000, Duan, Yue Lu wrote: > Hi, > > I have a question with the latest released LLVM which supports Fence > Instruction as IR. Say if I intentionally place a Sequentially Consistent Fence > Instruction somewhere in the code, then would the other transformation passes > that applied later respect the Fence and do not perform any reordering

You may have noticed I added an "inlinehint" attribute to the IR yesterday, to represent user declarations that hint inlining would be a good idea ("inline" keyword). Chris and I have been discussing how to hook it up to the C++ FE. Consider: class X { int A(int x) {....} inline int B(int x); }; inline int X::B(int x) {...} Per the language standard, A and B

Friday I enabled the inlinehint function attribute in the inliner. It mostly affects the performance of -Os compiled code. I have made some measurements on the SPEC test suite to show what it means. I made three runs of then nightly tests. The baseline represents -Os with no inlinehint: make TEST=nightly OPTFLAGS=-Os EXTRA_LOPT_OPTIONS=-inlinehint-threshold=0

Clang adds the InlineHint attribute to functions that are explicitly marked inline, but not if they are defined in the class body. I tried the following patch, which I believe handles the in-class definition case: --- a/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.cpp +++ b/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.cpp @@ -630,7 +630,7 @@ void CodeGenFunction::StartFunction(GlobalDecl GD, if (const FunctionDecl *FD =

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of Easwaran Raman > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 9:54 AM > To: Xinliang David Li > Cc: <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> List > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Inline hint for methods defined in-class > > Ping. > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:13 PM,

that looks like a different fix. The case mentioned by Easwaran is class A{ int foo () { return 1; } ... }; where 'foo' is not explicitly declared with 'inline' keyword. David On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Balaram Makam <bmakam at codeaurora.org> wrote: > AFAIK, this was fixed in r233817. > > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Robinson, Paul <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Easwaran Raman [mailto:eraman at google.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 1:27 PM >> To: Xinliang David Li >> Cc: Robinson, Paul; Xinliang David Li; <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> List >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Inline

The method to identify functions with in-class definitions is one part of my question. Even if there is a way to do that without passing the hint, I'm interested in getting feedback on treating it at-par with functions having the inline hint in inline cost analysis. Thanks, Easwaran On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > The problem

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Dale Johannesen<dalej at apple.com> wrote: > You may have noticed I added an "inlinehint" attribute to the IR > yesterday, to represent user declarations that hint inlining would be > a good idea ("inline" keyword).  Chris and I have been discussing how > to hook it up to the C++ FE.  Consider: > > class X { >    int

On Aug 26, 2009, at 11:54 AMPDT, Devang Patel wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Dale Johannesen<dalej at apple.com> > wrote: >> You may have noticed I added an "inlinehint" attribute to the IR >> yesterday, to represent user declarations that hint inlining would be >> a good idea ("inline" keyword). Chris and I have been discussing how

hi, I have a real networks on the eth0 side and real network on the eth1 side. a.a.a.0/24 x.x.x.0/24 <eth0--SNAT-box--eth1:0> y.y.y.2/24 <====> y.y.y.1/24 <===>INTERNET z.z.z.0/24 I want to nat those behind eth0 to go out as y.y.y.0/24 (eth1 is with another address different gw and address, so that i''m using eth1:0 and separate rule&table) I''m currently

hi, I have two situation where I need two targets in one rule ....... First one iptables -N syn-flood iptables -A syn-flood -m limit --limit ${synConns} --limit-burst ${synBurst} -j RETURN iptables -A syn-flood -j DROP iptables -A protect -p tcp --syn -j syn-flood Now I want to be able to say : iptables -A syn-flood -m limit --limit ${synConns} --limit-burst ${synBurst} -j LOG --log-prefix