Displaying 20 results from an estimated 900 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] how to turn off conversion of add's into or's (in address calculations)"
2014 Jun 25
2
[LLVMdev] Question Regarding Sign-Overflow
Sorry, the old title didn't make sense.
> Hi,
>
> I have doubts on the following transformation in InstCombineAddSub.cpp. Is
> it always safe to preserve NSW/NUW in this case?
>
> // If this is a 'B = x-(-A)', change to B = x+A. This preserves NSW/NUW. if (Value
2012 Dec 11
1
[LLVMdev] Loads/Stores and MachineMemOperand
The code itself makes sense, but I want to know if this breaks any
guarantee made about preserving a Value* in the MachineMemOperand. It
sounds like we're having the same issue. We were using the Value* stored
in the MachineMemOperand to get address space information during assembly
printing. The alternative is carrying around a lot of extra (redundant)
information in the SDAG.
If it is
2011 Jan 21
1
[LLVMdev] why dummy asserting base/interface class virtual methods instead of pure virtual methods?
LLVM code base seems to be full of base/interface classes, which have
methods like
virtual SDValue
LowerCall(SDValue Chain, SDValue Callee,
CallingConv::ID CallConv, bool isVarArg, bool &isTailCall,
const SmallVectorImpl<ISD::OutputArg> &Outs,
const SmallVectorImpl<SDValue> &OutVals,
const
2013 Jan 29
2
[LLVMdev] ANNOUNCEMENT: Removing list prefix
On 29 Jan 2013, at 10:20, Tobias Grosser wrote:
> On 01/28/2013 07:45 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote:
>> I will be removing the list prefix "LLVMDev" from the subject line. If you are filtering by this, please use the list headers instead.
>>
>> If you have any questions, please let me know.
>
> Thanks Tanya, this makes the subject lines of the commits a lot more
2010 Aug 25
0
[LLVMdev] Register allocation marking spills (Re: NumLoads/NumStores for linearscan?)
On 25 Aug 2010, at 02:04, Silvio Ricardo Cordeiro wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote:
>
> On Aug 15, 2010, at 5:12 PM, Silvio Ricardo Cordeiro wrote:
>
> > Is there a way for me to collect statistics about the number of loads/stores added by the "linearscan" register allocator (just like can be done with
2011 Sep 29
2
[LLVMdev] r140697 broke building with shared library enabled
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/hkultala26/src/llvm-trunk/llvm/tools/llvm-config'
llvm[1]: Regenerating LibDeps.txt.tmp
llvm[1]: Checking for cyclic dependencies between LLVM libraries.
find-cycles.pl: Circular dependency between *.a files:
find-cycles.pl: libLLVMPTXAsmPrinter.a libLLVMPTXCodeGen.a libLLVMPTXDesc.a
llvm[1]: Building llvm-config script.
cat:
2012 Dec 11
0
[LLVMdev] Loads/Stores and MachineMemOperand
On 11 Dec 2012, at 21:00, Justin Holewinski wrote:
> I want to get some clarification on the exact semantics of the MachineMemOperand attached to memory-touching instructions. From what I understand, a MemSDNode has an associated MachineMemOperand and a MachineInstr can have zero or more attached MachineMemOperands.
>
> But what is the guarantee/constraint placed on
2010 Aug 24
2
[LLVMdev] NumLoads/NumStores for linearscan?
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote:
>
> On Aug 15, 2010, at 5:12 PM, Silvio Ricardo Cordeiro wrote:
>
> > Is there a way for me to collect statistics about the number of
> loads/stores added by the "linearscan" register allocator (just like can be
> done with the "local" allocator)? I still haven't
2012 Dec 11
4
[LLVMdev] Loads/Stores and MachineMemOperand
I want to get some clarification on the exact semantics of the
MachineMemOperand attached to memory-touching instructions. From what I
understand, a MemSDNode has an associated MachineMemOperand and a
MachineInstr can have zero or more attached MachineMemOperands.
But what is the guarantee/constraint placed on optimization/codegen passes
for maintaining the contents of a MachineMemOperand? In
2014 Aug 09
3
[LLVMdev] Problems in installing LNT
I got
Python 2.7.3
Sounds right?
On Fri Aug 08 2014 at 4:45:01 PM Yi Kong <kongy.dev at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jingyue,
>
> I've never seen this error before. It looks like something to do with
> virtualenv.
>
> What do you get by running `~/mysandbox/bin/python --version`?
>
> -Yi
>
> On 8 August 2014 23:48, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com>
2012 Mar 05
4
[LLVMdev] commit r152019 broke architectures with more than 255 registers
Our architecture(TCE) can have LOTS of registers.
It seems r152019 changed some register bookkeeping data structures to
8-bit. This broke support for architectures with >255 registers.
Please revert this change or make those register-related values at least
16 bits wide.
2016 Mar 15
2
instrumenting device code with gpucc
Hi Jingyue,
Sorry to ask again, but how exactly could I glue the fatbin with the
instrumented host code? Or does it mean we actually cannot instrument both
the host & device code at the same time?
Thanks!
yuanfeng
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com> wrote:
> Including fatbin into host code should be done in frontend.
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016
2016 Mar 12
2
instrumenting device code with gpucc
Hey Jingyue,
Though I tried `opt -nvvm-reflect` on both bc files, the nvvm reflect
anchor didn't go away; ptxas is still complaining about the duplicate
definition of of function '_ZL21__nvvm_reflect_anchorv' . Did I misused
the nvvm-reflect pass?
Thanks!
yuanfeng
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com> wrote:
> According to the examples you
2014 Jun 17
3
[LLVMdev] Attaching range metadata to IntrinsicInst
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com> wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> In the IR, besides "target datalayout" and "target triple", we have a
> special "target cpu" string which is set by the Clang front-end according to
> its -target-cpu flag. We also write a Module::getTargetCPU() method to
> retrieve this string from the
2016 Mar 13
2
instrumenting device code with gpucc
Hey Jingyue,
Thanks for being so responsive! I finally figured out a way to resolve the
issue: all I have to do is to use `-only-needed` when merging the device
bitcodes with llvm-link.
However, since we actually need to instrument the host code as well, I
encountered another issue when I tried to glue the instrumented host code
and fatbin together. When I only instrumented the device code, I
2011 Mar 08
2
[LLVMdev] First Patch
Hi!
I've attached a patch which takes care of the issues mentioned (and adds
two tests).
--
Sanjoy Das
http://playingwithpointers.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ripple-bucket.diff
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 3318 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110308/0814e3e8/attachment.diff>
2015 Aug 21
2
[CUDA/NVPTX] is inlining __syncthreads allowed?
I'm using 7.0. I am attaching the reduced example.
nvcc sync.cu -arch=sm_35 -ptx
gives
// .globl _Z3foov
.visible .entry _Z3foov(
)
{
.reg .pred %p<2>;
.reg .s32 %r<3>;
mov.u32 %r1, %tid.x;
and.b32 %r2, %r1, 1;
setp.eq.b32 %p1, %r2, 1;
@!%p1 bra BB7_2;
bra.uni
2010 Oct 01
2
[LLVMdev] Illegal optimization in LLVM 2.8 during SelectionDAG? (Re: comparison pattern trouble - might be a bug in LLVM 2.8?)
On 1 Oct 2010, at 13:35, Bill Wendling wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote:
>
>> Bill Wendling wrote:
>>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers.
>>>>>
2014 Aug 08
2
[LLVMdev] Problems in installing LNT
Hi,
I followed the instructions on http://llvm.org/docs/lnt/quickstart.html,
and got stuck on installation Step 4.
~/mysandbox/bin/python ~/lnt/setup.py develop
said
running develop
error: None
and returned error code 1. The lnt binary wasn't installed anywhere.
Any clue?
Thanks much,
Jingyue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
2015 Aug 07
6
[RFC] BasicAA considers address spaces?
+ the new llvm-dev
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Unsurprisingly, leveraging the fact that certain address spaces don't
> alias can significantly improve alias analysis precision and enhance
> (observably 2x performance gain) load/store optimizations such as LICM and
> DSE.
>
> This sounds to me an