similar to: [LLVMdev] how to turn off conversion of add's into or's (in address calculations)

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