similar to: [LLVMdev] LSR pass

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jonas Paulsson" <jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com> > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:40:24 PM > Subject: [LLVMdev] LSR pass > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I would like some help regarding the LSR pass. It seems that it likes > to duplicate address calculations as in the

Hi, The target supports indexing by register or immediate. Multiplications are not supported by any load / store instructions. Would it be possible to make LSR aware of this? Thanks, Jonas Paulsson -----Original Message----- From: Hal Finkel [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov] Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 5:59 AM To: Jonas Paulsson Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LSR pass

Hi, I've stumbled upon a case where I think gvn does a bad (wrong) optimization. It's a bit messy to debug though so I'm not sure if I should just write a PR about it a let someone who knows the code look at it instead. Anyway, for the bug to trigger I need to run the following passes in the same opt invocation: -sroa -instcombine -simplifycfg -instcombine -gvn The problem

On Jun 29, 2010, at 7:08 AM, ether zhhb wrote: > > why computeSCEVAtScope not try to get the operands in the current > scope like the function do with SCEVCommutativeExpr, like: > > if (const SCEVAddRecExpr *AddRec = dyn_cast<SCEVAddRecExpr>(V)) { > if (!L || !AddRec->getLoop()->contains(L)) { > ... > // Then, evaluate the AddRec. >

hi all, i have SCEVAddRec {{(32 + @edge.8265),+,32}<Loop0>,+,4}<Loop1> where Loop0 and Loop1 are brothers (loops at the same level of the loopnest), and Loop0 have a computable backedge taken count. when i call getSCEVAtScope({{(32 + @edge.8265),+,32}<Loop0>,+,4}<Loop1> , Loop1), it just give me a {{(32 + @edge.8265),+,32}<Loop0>,+,4}<Loop1>, instead of

Ok. Let me describe the problem again in some detail. The following is the original bitcode from a real testcase: bb7: %46 = load i32* %j, align 4 %47 = add nsw i32 %46, 1 store i32 %47, i32* %j, align 4 br label %bb8 To protect the operand of the store I duplicate the input chain of operands and insert a comparison to check whether the operand of the stores are correct. As a result of

Dear all, after optimizing a small LLVM example program (i.e., with opt -O3), the resulting code contains several basic blocks, which I consider identical or redundant. For instance, return: ; preds = %min.exit ret i32 0 bb15: ; preds = %min.exit ret i32 0 or, bb7.i:

On 7 July 2011 00:02, D S Khudia <daya.khudia at gmail.com> wrote: > I am trying to add a intrinsic call between the similar two instructions > which either I'll remove or convert to nop in codegen. If the two instructions are only similar in your real example, than you need to make them similar in your test, not identical. Different offsets, different array... If them two are

Hi Renato, I am trying to add a intrinsic call between the similar two instructions which either I'll remove or convert to nop in codegen. Does that kind of seem appropriate for the purpose here? Thanks Daya On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at arm.com> wrote: > On 6 July 2011 15:57, D S Khudia <daya.khudia at gmail.com> wrote: > > Since I am

Would it make sense to have a similar pass that operates on llvm main IR? On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> wrote: > The branch folding pass does this, but it operates later, on the > target-dependent form in llc. > > On May 8, 2010, at 8:48 AM, Heinz Riener wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> after optimizing a small LLVM example

The branch folding pass does this, but it operates later, on the target-dependent form in llc. On May 8, 2010, at 8:48 AM, Heinz Riener wrote: > Dear all, > > after optimizing a small LLVM example program (i.e., with opt -O3), > the > resulting code contains several basic blocks, which I consider > identical > or redundant. For instance, > > return:

This is from 'early JIT tests' thread on comp.lang.misc. Given :- int ltst(int x) { int i, j; j=0; for(i=0; i<x; i++)j++; return(j); } This is from the online LLVM compiler. AND It does not seem to optimize it down ! ; ModuleID = '/tmp/webcompile/_24843_0.bc' target datalayout = "e-p:32:32" target endian = little target pointersize = 32 target triple =

Eugene Toder wrote: > Would it make sense to have a similar pass that operates on llvm main IR? > The unify exit return node (-mergereturn?) pass should take care of the first example. The -simplifycfg option might take care of the second example. Both work on LLVM IR. -- John T. > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> wrote: > >>

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> Date: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Order of Basic Blocks To: Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at googlemail.com> This worked, though the RPO_iterator apparently wasn't what I was looking for anyways, it seems it doesn't rreally go top->down. I have a simple example code,

In my ongoing work on refactoring the asmprinters, I've found that PIC16 doesn't put ':' after labels in some cases. Specifically, it looks like basic block labels are emitted without a ':': movwf @__floatunsidf.frame. + 2 movlp .BB1_2 goto .BB1_2 .BB1_2 ; %bb7 movlw 0 banksel @__floatunsidf.frame. but that

Hi, I'm having problems with the LoopIdiomRegognizer crashing on me with An asserting value handle still pointed to this value! UNREACHABLE executed at ../lib/IR/Value.cpp:695! If I remove AU.addPreserved<LoopInfoWrapperPass>(); or AU.addPreserved<AAResultsWrapperPass>(); everything goes well. The C-code triggering this is void foo(int a[10][10]) { int i, j,

We fairly recently switched service providers for our 4 PRI circuits. Since that time, we started to notice some failed inbound calls. These calls terminate with an ISDN cause code 47 'resource unavailble'. Most of the time I see this error on the first or second channel on the second span in a trunk group (This is the providers trunk group for hunting, not an Asterisk trunk group). All

On 08/05/2010 06:46 AM, Wenbin Zhang wrote: > Hi all, > I'm using postDominatorTree to do some program analysis. My code works > well for small tests, but when I run it on real applications, the > following error occurs: > /Inorder PostDominator Tree: DFSNumbers invalid: 0 slow queries. > [1] <<exit node>> {0,21} > [2] %bb1 {1,2} > [2] %bb {3,4} > [2]

Hi, It looks like PDT.getRootNode() returns NULL for: define fastcc void @c974001__lengthy_calculation. 1736(%struct.FRAME.c974001* nocapture %CHAIN.185) noreturn { entry: br label %bb bb: br label %bb } Isn't it a bug in PostDominatorTree? Please note that this crashes: opt -postdomtree -debug dom_crash.bc I think this should be reported as a bug, -Jakub On Sep 3, 2009, at

Hi Jakub, interesting patch. I ran it over the Ada testsuite and this picked up some problems even without enabling dse-ssu. For example, "opt -inline -dse -domtree" crashes on the attached testcase. Ciao, Duncan. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: dom_crash.ll URL: