similar to: [LLVMdev] bug in X86 disasm code?

I submitted the problem report to clang's bugzilla but no one seems to care so I have to send it to the mailing list. clang 3.7 svn (trunk 229055 as the time I was to report this problem) generates slower code than 3.5 (Apple LLVM version 6.0 (clang-600.0.56) (based on LLVM 3.5svn)) for the following code. It is a "8 queens puzzle" solver written as an educational example. As

The regressions in the performance of generated code, introduced by the llvm 3.6 release, don't seem to be limited to this 8 queens puzzle" solver test case. See... http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=llvm-clang-3.5-3.6-rc1&num=1 where a bit hit in the performance of the Sparse Matrix Multiply test of the SciMark v2.0 benchmark was observed as well as others.

Using the SciMark 2.0 code from http://math.nist.gov/scimark2/scimark2_1c.zip compiled with the same... make CFLAGS="-O3 -march=native" I am able to reproduce the 22% performance regression in the run time of the Sparse matmult benchmark. For 10 runs of the scimark2 benechmark, I get 998.439+/-0.4828 with the release llvm clang 3.5.1 compiler and 1217.363+/-1.1004 for the current

This patch introduces an optimized assembler version of md5_process(), the inner loop of MD5 checksumming. It affects the performance of all MD5 operations in rsync - including block matching and whole-file checksums. Performance gain is 5-10% depending on the specific CPU. Originally created by Marc Bevand and placed in the public domain, later integrated into OpenSSL. This is the original

there is an if-else code in X86DisassemblerDecoder.c that does exactly the same thing on both paths. so this patch removes the redundant path. thanks, Jun diff --git a/lib/Target/X86/Disassembler/X86DisassemblerDecoder.c b/lib/Target/X86/Disassembler/X86DisassemblerDecoder.c index 20e61da..3932ea1 100644 --- a/lib/Target/X86/Disassembler/X86DisassemblerDecoder.c +++

Hi Scott, That #1073741833 is a register mask. They are treated as aggregate registers (essentially sets of registers), so if it includes R9D and R11D, it will be treated as being aliased with both. These separate defs are there because they reach disjoint registers. -- Krzysztof Parzyszek kparzysz at quicinc.com<mailto:kparzysz at quicinc.com> AI tools development From: Scott

Hi Scott, Sorry for the late reply, I was out of office during the holidays. 1. A def node can reach either a use node, or another def node. In the highlighted phi node (p3224), the def (d3225) reaches another def (1598) in statement (s1597), that’s why it’s needed. 2. The reason why the def of R11 in s1578 is not connected directly to the use in s1725 is that there may be an intervening

Hi there! In the x86 disassembler I noticed an if-statement with a duplicated branch. Are these intended to be identical? Best regards, Nicolas Kaiser -- diff -ur llvm-2.8.orig/lib/Target/X86/Disassembler/X86DisassemblerDecoder.c llvm-2.8/lib/Target/X86/Disassembler/X86DisassemblerDecoder.c --- llvm-2.8.orig/lib/Target/X86/Disassembler/X86DisassemblerDecoder.c 2010-05-06 22:59:00.000000000 +0200

Hello LLVM Community, To improve Interprocedural Register Allocation (IPRA) we are trying to force caller saved registers for local functions (which has likage type local). To achive it I have modified TargetFrameLowering::determineCalleeSaves() to return early for function which satisfies if (F->hasLocalLinkage() && !F->hasAddressTaken()) and also reflecting the fact that for local

I have the following binary data set: Sex Response 0 1 0 159 162 1 4 37 My commands library(MASS) sib.glm=glm(sib~sex,family=binomial,data=sib.data) summary(sib.glm) The coefficients in the output are Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) (Intercept) -3.6826 0.5062 -7.274 3.48e-13

Hello, I've searched for an answer to no avail. I am wondering if anyone knows how to constrain certain correlations to be equal. I have family data with 2 twins per family plus up to 2 siblings. I would like to somehow constrain all the sibling correlations (twin-sib and sib-sib) to be the same while allowing the twin-twin correlation to be different. Here is some simulated code:

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:03 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello LLVM Community, > > To improve Interprocedural Register Allocation (IPRA) we are trying to > force caller > saved registers for local functions (which has likage type local). To > achive it > I have modified TargetFrameLowering::determineCalleeSaves() to return > early for >

According to this http://llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html#tail-call-section, it seems that adding a new CC for the purpose of local function optimization seems a good idea because tail call optimization only takes place when both caller and callee have fastcc or GHC or HiPE calling convention. -Vivek On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 1:26 AM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: >

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 12:25 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello , > > To solve this bug locally I have given preference to tail call optimization over local function related optimization in IPRA. I have added following method to achieve this: > > bool isEligibleForTailCallOptimization(Function *F) { > CallingConv::ID CC =

Hi, In file X86DisassemblerDecoder.c, we have function readPrefixes() with below code: ..... } else if (insn->mode == MODE_32BIT) { insn->registerSize = (hasOpSize ? 2 : 4); insn->addressSize = (hasAdSize ? 2 : 4); insn->displacementSize = (hasAdSize ? 2 : 4); insn->immediateSize = (hasOpSize ? 2 : 4); } .... This is confused to me: so we

Does anyone know if the sib TDT has been implemented in R 1. Spielman, R.S., and Ewens, W.J. (1998) A sibship test for linkage in the presence of association: the sib transmission/disequilibrium test. Am J Hum Genet 62, 450-458 -- Farrel Buchinsky, MD Pediatric Otolaryngologist Allegheny General Hospital Pittsburgh, PA

Hi, It looks like the problem was with the RIP relative addressing. The original patch mistakenly removed the || DispForReloc part because I tough that the RIP relative addressing was done by the SIB encodings, but it is actually done by the shorter ones. The attached patch seems to work for me on linux and when simulating darwin by forcing some variables in X86TargetMachine.cpp to their darwin

Comments below. On Apr 15, 2008, at 4:24 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > OK, here's a new patch that adds the infrastructure and the > implementation for X86, ARM and PPC of GetInstSize and > GetFunctionSize. Both functions are virtual functions defined in > TargetInstrInfo.h. > > For X86, I moved some commodity functions from X86CodeEmitter to > X86InstrInfo. >

Hello , To solve this bug locally I have given preference to tail call optimization over local function related optimization in IPRA. I have added following method to achieve this: bool isEligibleForTailCallOptimization(Function *F) { CallingConv::ID CC = F->getCallingConv(); if (CC == CallingConv::Fast || CC == CallingConv::GHC || CC == CallingConv::HiPE) return true; return false;

OK, here's a new patch that adds the infrastructure and the implementation for X86, ARM and PPC of GetInstSize and GetFunctionSize. Both functions are virtual functions defined in TargetInstrInfo.h. For X86, I moved some commodity functions from X86CodeEmitter to X86InstrInfo. What do you think? Nicolas Evan Cheng wrote: > > I think both of these belong to TargetInstrInfo. And