similar to: [LLVMdev] Two questions about MergeFunctions pass

On 27 October 2013 11:30, Stepan Dyatkovskiy <stpworld at narod.ru> wrote: > Hi Nick. > > Can you help me sort some things out in MergeFucntions pass. While I was > working on MergeFunctions pass I got several questions. I hardly tried to > find all the answers by myself, but there are still two questions without > answer. > > It is about merging functions itself

Hi David, After merging we always remove body of "G" (function we want to merge with "existing" one). In case with "writeThunk" we could add such info for "G", but it would be just a single string: reference to first string of "G". Ideal way here, is to merge debug information itself, and provide "F" with information for "G"

Hi all, I propose simple improvement for MergeFunctions pass, that reduced its complexity from O(N^2) to O(log(N)), where N is number of functions in module. The idea, is to replace the result of comparison from "bool" to "-1,0,1". In another words: define order relation on functions set. To be sure, that functions could be comparable that way, we have to prove that order

Hi Stepan, After discovering several bugs in ArgumentPromotion and DeadArgumentElimination where llvm::Functions were replaced with similar functions (with the same name) to transform their type in some way, I started looking at all calls to llvm::Function::takeName to see if there were any other debug info quality bugs in similar callers. One such caller is MergeFunctions, and I don't see

Hi Stepan, This looks interesting! Some high-level comments: - Please post the patch untarred next time. Also, I'm not sure if it's typical to provide supporting documents in .doc format; while many of us probably have access to Word, a more portable and email-friendly format (like text, markdown or rst) is probably better. - Have you profiled this? What's the speedup? I

Hi all, Previous patch has been split onto series of small changes. On each stage (after each patch) MergeFunctions pass is compilable and stable. Please find patches in attachment for review. To apply all patches at once, use "apply-patches.sh" script as follows: 0. Place "apply-patches.sh" in same directory with patches. 1. cd <llvm-sources-dir> 2. "bash

Hi all, Please find the updated patch in attachment: * Added some comments. * Fixed some typos. -Stepan Nick Lewycky wrote: > On 30 January 2014 01:27, Stepan Dyatkovskiy <stpworld at narod.ru > <mailto:stpworld at narod.ru>> wrote: > > Hello Sean and Tobias, > > Sean, > Thank you. Could you describe Nick's ideas in few words or give me >

Hi Nick, I tried to rework changes as you requested. One of patches (0004 with extra assertions) has been removed. > + bool isEquivalentType(Type *Ty1, Type *Ty2) const { > + return cmpType(Ty1, Ty2) == 0; > + } > > Why do we still need isEquivalentType? Can we nuke this? Yup. After applying all the patches isEquivalentType will be totally replaced with cmpType. All

On 2014 Jan 22, at 07:35, Stepan Dyatkovskiy <stpworld at narod.ru> wrote: > Hi Raul and Duncan, > > Duncan, > Thank you for review. I hope to present fixed patch tomorrow. > > First, I would like to show few performance results: > > command: "time opt -mergefunc <test>" > > File: tramp3d-v4.ll, 12963 functions > Current

Hi Tobias, > I can't really see a way to combine our approach with your patch. What > are your thoughts? I think it is possible. Even more - we need to combine our efforts, in order to bring this pass into real live. I'have read your presentation file, and unfortunately read your patch only a little. How exactly you scan functions on 2nd stage? Could you explain the algorithm in

Hi Nick, I have committed 0001 as r203788. I'm working on fixes for 0002 - 0014. > After reading through this patch series, I feel like I'm missing > something important. Where's the sort function? It looks like we're > still comparing all functions to all other functions. When you insert functions into std::set or its analogs it does all the job for you. Since

Hi Chris. There is no zero arrays created. Probably this patch is not optimal and I'll reworked it today. But the main idea is keep a single zero-item when ConstantAggregateZero was wrapped and return this zero item as result of getOperand call. Note that wrapper has no parent classes, it has very local and short lifetime (method body), it exists outside the LLVMContext and needed for

I just want to update test/Transforms/LowerSwitch/feature.ll that already uses grep. It uses grep + count, probably due to shorter construction. -Stepan. Eric Christopher wrote: > > On May 24, 2012, at 12:12 AM, Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote: > >> Hi all. I found that if you want to use grep with escape characters in >> lit, you should pass it within the double slash (\\). Since

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Stepan Dyatkovskiy <stpworld at narod.ru>wrote: > I just want to update test/Transforms/LowerSwitch/feature.ll that > already uses grep. > It uses grep + count, probably due to shorter construction. > If you are touching such a test, please convert it to FileCheck. Use of 'grep' in tests is an endless source of problems, and we are

Yep check out PR1324. Doing something like this would be a great improvement. -Chris On Jan 21, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Anton, in a solution without CAZ, isNullValue can just return true when it > sees the special "this ConstantArray is all zero" flag. So all the places that > now look for CAZ can just use isNullValue instead

Hi everybody. I found that there are some problems with symbol location in AsmParser. 1. We need to know where symbol was declared. 2. We need to know where symbol was defined first time. There are two ways: 1. Add helper table to the parser with additional symbol info. But it takes additional memory consumption. 2. Add user tag (void*) for MCSymbol object. As I understood MCSymbol can live

Hi Chris. The main question is how to implement ConstantAggregateXXXXX::getOperand? Should it be empty collection, or it must return the item aggregated? -Stepan. 22.01.2012, 04:43, "Chris Lattner" <clattner at apple.com>: > Yep check out PR1324.  Doing something like this would be a great improvement. > > -Chris > > On Jan 21, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Duncan Sands

Hi. I just want to know does anyone has the same problem or not. After running "make check-lit" tests are stopped at 61th percent (Linker tests). Each time it stops on different tests. Thanks. -- Regards, Stepan

Now I see, that its to so trivial as I thought before. There are a lots of parser extensions that creates the symbols. And in each place we need insert add its location info. I also found that MCContext has several create symbols methods, but all these methods uses CreateSymbol private method. So I see two possible ways here: 1. To aggregate all GetOrCreate-like symbol methods inside the

Hm... tests were corrected themselves. No svn updates was made. 0. I turned on my laptop and boot Ubuntu 11.04. 1. I run ../llvm/configure in clean folder. 2. make 3. make check-lit 4. Tests was looped at 61%. Eclipse doesn't want to debug it too. It crashes at the start of debug session. I reboot my computer again, and all work well now. Probably some specific bios + OS + (specific cpu