similar to: [LLVMdev] clang -O2 versus opt -O2 | llc | clang

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim Northover" <t.p.northover at gmail.com> > To: "Sanjay Patel" <spatel at rotateright.com> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 2:22:55 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] clang -O2 versus opt -O2 | llc | clang > > Hi Sanjay, > > >

Dear all, Some benchmarking experimentation I`ve done recently -- all on AArch64 -- has shown that it might be beneficial for all AArch64 targets to have a positive LoopMicroOpBufferSize, whereas the default that applies to all ISAs seems to be zero. Although I`ve tried going as far down the rabbit hole as I can, I haven`t found a way to set DefaultLoopMicroOpBufferSize on a per-ISA basis or

Hello everyone, please I need your help. To reproduce my problem I created simple pass for backends (TestPass.cpp in attached files). That pass I call from Mips backend in this way (MipsTargetMachine.cpp): bool MipsPassConfig::addPreRegAlloc() { addPass(createTestPass()); return false; } The problem becomes, when I am trying compile file ldtoa.ll (in attached files). Compiling

Hi Sanjay, > Am 02.08.2016 um 21:39 schrieb Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com>: > > Hi Matthias - > > Sorry for the delayed reply. I think you're on the right path with D22864. No problem, thank you for your answer! > If I'm understanding it correctly, my foo() example and zext_or_icmp_icmp() will be equivalent after your patch is added to InstCombine.

Hi Sanjay, thank you a lot for your answer. I understand that in your examples it is desirable that `foo` and `goo` are canonicalized to the same IR, i.e., something like `@goo`. However, I still have a few open questions, but please correct me in case I'm thinking in the wrong direction. > Am 21.07.2016 um 18:51 schrieb Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com>: > > I've

I have the following simplified llvm ir, which basically returns value based on the first value of a constant array. ---- ; ModuleID = 'simple_ir3.txt' @f.b = constant [1 x i32] [i32 1], align 4 ; constant array with value 1 at the first element define void @f(i32* nocapture %l0) { entry: %fc_ = alloca [1 x i32] %f.b.v = load [1 x i32]* @f.b store [1 x i32] %f.b.v, [1 x

I came in to an email this morning that said basically the same thing for the reduced example we were looking at. However, the original IR it came from (before hand reduction) had the data layout set correctly, so there's probably still *something* going on. It's just not what I thought at first. :) Philip On 09/10/2014 02:26 AM, Roel Jordans wrote: > Looking at the -debug

I was looking through the InstCombine pass, and I was wondering why signed division is not considered a valid operation to combine in the canEvaluateTruncated function. This means, given the following code: %conv = sext i16 %0 to i32 %conv1 = sext i16 %1 to i32 %div = sdiv i32 %conv, %conv1 %conv2 = trunc i32 %div to i16 * Assume %0 and %1 are registers created from simple 16-bit loads. We

Hi all, I have been looking at the way LLVM optimizes code before forwarding it to the backend I develop for my company and while building define i32 @test_extract_subreg_func(i32 %x, i32 %y) #0 { entry: %conv = zext i32 %x to i64 %conv1 = zext i32 %y to i64 %mul = mul nuw i64 %conv1, %conv %shr = lshr i64 %mul, 32 %xor = xor i64 %shr, %mul %conv2 = trunc i64 %xor to i32

I decided to pump some IR through the optimizers and was surprised to find that we don't choose to canonicalize any of the following functions to the other even though they are all roughly the same. define i32 @f1(i32 %x, i32 %m) #0 { entry: %and = and i32 %m, 32896 %tobool = icmp ne i32 %and, 0 %cond = select i1 %tobool, i32 8, i32 0 %shr = lshr i32 %x, %cond ret i32 %shr } ;

Hi! before InstCombine (llvm::createInstructionCombiningPass()) I have a trunc from i8 to i1 and then a select: %45 = load i8* @myGlobal, align 1 %tobool = trunc i8 %45 to i1 %cond = select i1 %tobool, float 1.000000e+00, float -1.000000e+00 after instCombine I have: %29 = load i8* @myGlobal, align 1 %30 = and i8 %29, 1 %tobool = icmp ne i8 %30, 0 %cond = select i1 %tobool, float 1.000000e+00,

Dear list, I have to read a not-so-small bunch of not-so-small Excel files, which seem to have traversed Window 3.1, Windows95 and Windows NT versions of the thing (with maybe a Mac or two thrown in for good measure...). The problem is that 1) I need to read strings, and 2) those strings may have various encodings. In the same sheet of the same file, some cells may be latin1, some

--Hipsgkxbeg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: message body text Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This one was sent privately to me. --Hipsgkxbeg Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Description: forwarded message Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: from tuvok.kom.tuwien.ac.at (tuvok.kom.tuwien.ac.at [192.35.241.66]) by fangorn.ci.tuwien.ac.at (8.9.3/8.8.5)

On Dec 27, 2011, at 5:09 AM, Jochen Wilhelmy wrote: > Hi! > > before InstCombine (llvm::createInstructionCombiningPass()) I have > a trunc from i8 to i1 and then a select: > > %45 = load i8* @myGlobal, align 1 > %tobool = trunc i8 %45 to i1 > %cond = select i1 %tobool, float 1.000000e+00, float -1.000000e+00 > > after instCombine I have: > > %29 = load i8*

Hello All, I have the following dataset: Year 2006 2007 Jan Jan 0.0204 0.0065 Feb Feb 0.0145 0.0082 Mar Mar 0.0027 0.0122 > dput(d_tmp) structure(list(Year = c("Jan", "Feb", "Mar"), `2006` = c(0.0204, 0.0145, 0.0027), `2007` = c(0.0065, 0.0082, 0.0122)), .Names = c("Year", "2006", "2007"), row.names = c("Jan",

In the section about poison values, the LLVM language reference manual says: "Values other than phi nodes depend on their operands." This implies that a select instruction's output can be poisoned by its not-selected argument value. If select were poisoned only by its selected argument, we would expect this fact to be mentioned specifically, as it is for phi. Next I'll

Hi, Comments inline. Ben On 12/08/2008 03:14, "Owen Anderson" <resistor at mac.com> wrote: >> We would like to develop a code generator using LLVM for a target language >> that does not support conditional branches and in fact only supports >> structured control flow, eg. If and while. What's the difference between an "if" and a conditional

>> Hi! >> >> before InstCombine (llvm::createInstructionCombiningPass()) I have >> a trunc from i8 to i1 and then a select: >> >> %45 = load i8* @myGlobal, align 1 >> %tobool = trunc i8 %45 to i1 >> %cond = select i1 %tobool, float 1.000000e+00, float -1.000000e+00 >> >> after instCombine I have: >> >> %29 = load i8*

I think Chris is saying that the and is necessary because with your i1 trunc you're ignoring all of the high bits. The and implements that. If you don't want this behavior, don't generate the trunc in the first place and just compare the full width to zero. Reid On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 6:45 AM, Jochen Wilhelmy <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de>wrote: > > >> Hi! >

To reproduce the issue, please use the command line "opt -simplifycfg filename". target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128" target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" %struct.G = type { %struct.ordered_index_node*, i32 } %struct.ordered_index_node = type { %struct.B, %struct.F } %struct.B = type { i32 } %struct.F = type { i32*, i32* }