similar to: [LLVMdev] : Predication on SIMD architectures and LLVM

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 09:13:43PM +0100, Bjorn De Sutter wrote: > Hi all, > > I am working on a CGRA backend (something like a 2D VLIW), and we also absolutely need predication. I extended the IfConversion pass to allow it to be executed multiple times and to predicate already predicated code. This is necessary to predicate code with nested conditional statements. At this point, we

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Peter A Jonsson <pj at sics.se> wrote: > Hi Kyle, > > my apologies for mailing you directly but it seems new user creation is > disabled on the llvm bugzilla. > > We sometime lose edges during IfConversion of diamonds and it’s not > obvious how to reproduce on an upstream target. The documentation for > HasFallThrough says *may*

Evan, et al., I've come across a small issue when using the if conversion pass in PPC to generate conditional returns. Here's a small example: ** Before if conversion ** BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry %R3<def> = LI 0 %CR0<def> = CMPLWI %R3, 0 BCC 68, %CR0, <BB#3> Successors according to CFG: BB#3(16) BB#1(16) BB#1: derived from LLVM BB

In the section expaining "dyn_cast" There are following lines of code: if (AllocationInst *AI = dyn_cast<AllocationInst>(Val)) { ... } I cannot understand how you take a operand, a value, and cast it into a Instruction. Can you explain it for me? Another common example is: // Loop over all of the phi nodes in a basic block BasicBlock::iterator BBI =

Hi all! I have a problem setting ACLs on a remote file on a Windows XP Pro SP2 box. I issue the following command: smbcacls -a 'ACL:BBI-DEV\beakid:ALLOWED/0/0x00100116' -U 'BBI-DEV \Admin' //BBI-DEV/Data /Niva.txt And I get this response from debug level 3. Password: Connecting to host=BBI-DEV Connecting to 192.168.1.124 at port 445 Doing spnego session setup (blob

Thanks for the review Gordon. On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com>wrote: > On 2011-10-31, at 17:21, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > > > Here's a patch to allow a GCStrategy to customize the places where it > wants to insert safe points. I'm not sure who maintains the GC code today > in LLVM (I'd be happy to take ownership, if

Hi all! I have a problem setting ACLs on a remote file on a Windows XP Pro SP2 box. I issue the following command: smbcacls -a 'ACL:BBI-DEV\beakid:ALLOWED/0/0x00100116' -U 'BBI-DEV \Admin' //BBI-DEV/Data /Niva.txt And I get this response from debug level 3. Password: Connecting to host=BBI-DEV Connecting to 192.168.1.124 at port 445 Doing spnego session setup (blob

On Nov 1, 2011, at 4:47 AM, Nicolas Geoffray <nicolas.geoffray at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the review Gordon. > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > On 2011-10-31, at 17:21, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > > > Here's a patch to allow a GCStrategy to customize the places where it wants to insert safe points.

my compiler gave me a warning in MCObjectDisassembler.cpp. it found a self-comparation in loop condition. I think it's a typo. the suspicious code was introduced by this patch: >From f176482752fbea3139394e280adfb10270dd3aac Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ahmed Bougacha <ahmed.bougacha at gmail.com> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 07:28:55 +0000 Subject: MC CFG: Support disassembly at

On 2011-10-31, at 17:21, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Here's a patch to allow a GCStrategy to customize the places where it wants to insert safe points. I'm not sure who maintains the GC code today in LLVM (I'd be happy to take ownership, if needed). > > The patch just adds up a custom safepoints flag, similar to the way the GCStrategy can customize intrinsics lowering, or

On 4/10/2013 12:45 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > > Should AnalyzeBranch be enhanced to somehow indicate conditional returns? I don't think that returns can ever be analyzable (since LLVM's CFG does not have a designated exit block). > Alternatively, the diamond conversion routine contains this: > > // RemoveExtraEdges won't work if the block has an unanalyzable branch,

Any chance of adding some missing test coverage here? That code was dead (& evidently untested) before... On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > I believe you are correct. Fixed thusly: > > dzur:~/sources/llvm> git svn dcommit > Committing to https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk ... > M

Pertti, On Feb 13, 2007, at 7:34 PM, Pertti Kellomäki wrote: > Dietmar Ebner wrote: >> most of the work seems to be done in an architecture dependent, >> very low- >> level IR. are there any efforts to generalize architecture >> independent portions >> of the code. >> any comments on this are very appreciated. > > We are in a similar

Hi Chris, Gordon, Here's a patch to allow a GCStrategy to customize the places where it wants to insert safe points. I'm not sure who maintains the GC code today in LLVM (I'd be happy to take ownership, if needed). The patch just adds up a custom safepoints flag, similar to the way the GCStrategy can customize intrinsics lowering, or roots initialization. It works pretty well, as

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Friedman, Eli via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 10/9/2017 3:10 AM, Gaël Jobin via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi all, > > I got a silly bug when compiling our project with the latest Clang. Here's > the outputted assembly: > > tst r3, #255 > strbeq r6, [r7] > ldreq r6, [r4, r6, lsl #2] > strne r6, [r7, #4]

Patch for review. On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:45 PM Puyan Lotfi <puyan.lotfi.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > Ping. > > Still working on preparing code for review. Will have a patch for review > ready in the coming days. > > PL > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:06 PM Puyan Lotfi <puyan.lotfi.llvm at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >>

On Feb 14, 2007, at 2:18 AM, Dietmar Ebner wrote: > Pertti, > > On Feb 13, 2007, at 7:34 PM, Pertti Kellomäki wrote: >> Dietmar Ebner wrote: >>> most of the work seems to be done in an architecture dependent, >>> very low- >>> level IR. are there any efforts to generalize architecture >>> independent portions >>> of the code.

Hi, TL;DR: A loop doesn't get vectorized due to the interaction of loop- rotate, licm and instcombine. What to do about it? Full story: In the benchmarks for our out-of-tree target we have a case that we would like to get vectorized, but currently it isn't. I've done some digging to see why and have some kind of idea what prevents it, but I don't know what the best way to fix

It works with MemoryLocation MemoryLocation::get(const CallInst *CI) { AAMDNodes AATags; CI->getAAMetadata(AATags); const auto &DL = CI->getModule()->getDataLayout(); return MemoryLocation(CI, DL.getTypeStoreSize(CI->getType()), AATags); } Is it fine? :) 2018-05-22 23:56 GMT+02:00 Dávid Bolvanský <david.bolvansky at gmail.com>: > Looks like there are many overloads

You might want to look more carefully at how you're constructing the MemoryLocation.   The first argument is a pointer, and the second argument is the number of bytes pointed to by that pointer (or MemoryLocation::UnknownSize if the number of bytes accessed isn't known). More generally, copy-pasting code you don't understand isn't a good idea. -Eli On 5/22/2018 4:02 PM, Dávid