similar to: [LLVMdev] Patching jump tables at run-time

The Problem? Nowaday, SCEV called "Scalar Evolution" does only evolate instructions that has predictable operand, Constant-Based operand. such as that can evolute as a constant. otherwise we couldn't evolate it as SCEV node, evolated as SCEVUnknown. important thing that we remember is, we do not use SCEV only for Loop Deletion, which that doesn't really needed on nature loops

Hi @ll, while clang/LLVM recognizes common bit-twiddling idioms/expressions like unsigned int rotate(unsigned int x, unsigned int n) { return (x << n) | (x >> (32 - n)); } and typically generates "rotate" machine instructions for this expression, it fails to recognize other also common bit-twiddling idioms/expressions. The standard IEEE CRC-32 for "big

"Sanjay Patel" <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > IIUC, you want to use x86-specific bit-hacks (sbb masking) in cases like > this: > unsigned int foo(unsigned int crc) { > if (crc & 0x80000000) > crc <<= 1, crc ^= 0xEDB88320; > else > crc <<= 1; > return crc; > } To document this for x86 too: rewrite the function

Rather than “fixing” it, it might be better to support a separate method for signed extension. My reasoning is as follows: int x = 7; llvm::PointerIntPair<double*, 3, int> pip; pip.setInt(x); There could be code out there that expects pip.getInt() to return 7 and not -1. So if you really want to set a negative and return a negative value, a separate method setSignedInt and getSignedInt

I'd argue that bitfield sign extensions are surprising and are usually a source of bugs. It would be much more explicit and less error prone for the user to write the sign extension if they want it. By extension, it seems good that PointerIntPair doesn't do sign extension when the type happens to be signed. On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:47 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at

Hi, Recently 10% performance regression on an important benchmark showed up after we integrated https://reviews.llvm.org/rL318299. The analysis showed that rL318299 triggered loop rotation on an multi exits loop, and the loop rotation introduced code layout issue. The performance regression is a side-effect of rL318299. I got two testcases a.ll and b.ll attached to illustrate the problem. a.ll

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:11 AM Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Thanks for reporting this and other perf opportunities. As I mentioned > before, if you could file bug reports for these, that's probably the only > way they're ever going to get fixed (unless you're planning to fix them > yourself). It's not an ideal situation, but

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 5:46 PM Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > The introduction of cleanup.cond block in b.ll without loop-rotation > already makes the layout worse than a.ll. > > > Without introducing cleanup.cond block, the layout out is > > entry->while.cond -> while.body->ret > > All the arrows are hot fall through edges which is

The sign extension is correct. Otherwise setInt(-1) won’t work. If you don’t want sign extension, then use ‘unsigned’ and not ‘int’ in the template arguments. > On Apr 4, 2018, at 14:34, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I'd argue that bitfield sign extensions are surprising and are usually a source of bugs. It would be much more explicit and

I do agree that sign-extension is the right thing to do. Unlike bit-fields, llvm::PointerIntPair has asserts checking that the int value is within range. So if you assign an out of range value, it should fail with an assertion: llvm::PointerIntPair<SomeType*, 3, int> pip; pip.setInt(7); // can be made to fail as the valid range // of signed 3-bit values is [-4:3] The above

I think it'd be reasonable to model this on the same behavior as int to short to int round-tripping & not to speculate that there might be code relying on the existing behavior until there's evidence of it. I'd suggest changing the behavior & testing to see if anything breaks - and if nothing does, moving to the behavior rather than supporting both. On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at

It won't move the sign bit, so negative values won't fit, unless you have a 3 bit signed type ;) Note that if you assign negative values to and then read from a signed bit-field, you would do sign extension. So 3-bit signed types do exist in C++. It begs the question why PointerIntPair supports signed int types if it always loses the sign. Is it just to avoid signed/unsigned comparison

define dso_local i32 @f(i32 %0) { %2 = and i32 %0, 7 %3 = icmp eq i32 %2, 7 %4 = zext i1 %3 to i32 ret i32 %4 } I thought instcombine would remove it. It doesn't and nothing else does either. LLVM Version is 10.0.0. /Riyaz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

the clang 3.5 loop optimizer seems to jump in unintentional for simple loops the very simple example ---- const int SIZE = 3; int the_func(int* p_array) { int dummy = 0; #if defined(ITER) for(int* p = &p_array[0]; p < &p_array[SIZE]; ++p) dummy += *p; #else for(int i = 0; i < SIZE; ++i) dummy += p_array[i]; #endif return dummy; } int main(int argc, char** argv) {

If I read the llvm language correctly, it doesn't have a way to specify the preferred branch, correct ? I see nothing in the specs for "branch" or "switch". And __buildin_expect does nothing, that I am sure of. Unfortunately llvm has this knack for ordering my one most crucial part of code exactly the opposite I want to, it does: (x86_64) cmpq %r15, (%rax,%rdx) jne

The Hexagon part is fixed in r364790. -- Krzysztof Parzyszek kparzysz at quicinc.com<mailto:kparzysz at quicinc.com> LLVM compiler development From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Joan Lluch via llvm-dev Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2019 2:04 PM To: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: [EXT] [llvm-dev] [hexagon][PowerPC] code regression

I'd suggest someone try fixing this & see if it breaks anything that can't reasonably be fixed (before we go assuming this is by design/shouldn't be fixed just because it's the way it is today). On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 7:16 AM Riyaz Puthiyapurayil via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > It won't move the sign bit, so negative values won't fit,

Can someone confirm whether the following is a known clang bug? I am having a lot of trouble compiling some old legacy code due to this error. I know "using namespace" is horrible but that doesn't make it illegal (g++ accepts this). The fix is easy but there are just too many instances of this in the legacy code. The following is not from the code I am trying to compile but is

Am 03.03.2015 um 19:49 schrieb Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>: Hi Philip first thanks for your response, > You'll need to prove a bit more information to get any useful response. Questions: > 1) What's you're use case? Are you using clang to compile C code? Are you manually generating LLVM IR? yes the "inline function C code" will be compiled

I have a variadic intrinsic that is defined as something like this: def int_foobar : Intrinsic<[llvm_anyint_ty], [llvm_vararg_ty], [IntrNoMem, IntrSpeculatable]>; When I construct a call to the above intrinsic with IRBuilder::CreateIntrinsic, it mangles the intrinsic name with the return type (i64) and the actual argument