similar to: [LLVMdev] failed folding with constant array with opt -O3

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

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* }

Hi, The phase of instruction combine cannot handle the instruction %4 = select i1 %tobool.i, metadata !12, metadata !10 generated by the phase of CFG simplification and the compiler generates an assertion failure. I wonder whether this is valid LLVM IR: %4 = select i1 %tobool.i, metadata !12, metadata !10 Before CFGSimplify cond.true.i: ; preds = %entry

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 Andrew, Thank you for the suggestion. I've looked at CodeGenPrepare.cpp and MoveExtToFormExtLoad() is never run. I also notice that the ARM target produces the same additional register usage (copy) and zero extending (of the copy). (See the usage of r3 &r5 and also r12 & r4 in attached file arm-strcspn.s, my understanding is that 'ldrb' is zero extending.) Here is a

Hi the appended IR code does not optimize to my liking :) this is the interesting part in x86_64, that got produced via clang -Os: --- movq -16(%r12), %rax movl -4(%rax), %ecx andl $2298949, %ecx ## imm = 0x231445 cmpq $2298949, (%rax,%rcx) ## imm = 0x231445 leaq 8(%rax,%rcx), %rax cmovneq %r15, %rax movl $2298949, %esi ## imm = 0x231445 movq %r12, %rdi movq %r14,

Hello there, I'm writing a transformation pass for LLVM, and I hoped to use dce to clean up the resulting code after my pass. I just have some questions about LLVM's dce implementation. Well, my transformation is a function pass, and, after the changes are made, some instructions are not needed anymore. In order to easily get rid of those instructions, I'm setting all their uses to

Hello Has there been any progress on this topic ? The 3.9 optimizer output is still the same as I just looked. https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24448 Ciao Nat! Sanjay Patel schrieb: > [cc'ing Zia] > > We have this transform with -Os for some cases after: > http://reviews.llvm.org/rL244601 > http://reviews.llvm.org/D11363 > > but something in this example is

Hi Cristianno, On 01/06/13 01:49, Cristianno Martins wrote: > Hello there, > > I'm writing a transformation pass for LLVM, and I hoped to use dce to clean up > the resulting code after my pass. I just have some questions about LLVM's dce > implementation. > > Well, my transformation is a function pass, and, after the changes are made, > some instructions are not

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,

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*

On Sep 10, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Robert Lytton <robert at xmos.com> wrote: > Hi, > > A bit more information. > I believe my problem lies with the fact that the load is left as 'anyext from i8'. > On the XCore target we know this will become an 8bit zext load - as there is no 8bit sign extended load! > If BB#1 were to force the load to a "zext from i8" would

>> 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! >

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

After a crash, in my zpool tree, some dataset report this we i do a ls -la: brwxrwxrwx 2 777 root 0, 0 Oct 18 2009 mail-cts also if i set zfs set mountpoint=legacy dataset and then i mount the dataset to other location before the directory tree was only : dataset - vdisk.raw The file was a backing device of a Xen VM, but i cannot access the directory structure of this dataset. However i

Full_Name: Allan Stokes Version: 28.1 OS: XP Submission from: (NULL) (24.108.0.245) I'm trying to use package HDF5 and have discovered some round-trip errors: save, load, save is not idempotent. I started digging into the type system to figure out what type graffiti is fouling this up. Soon I discovered that comparisons with NULL produce zero length vectors, which I hadn't known was

Dear wise ones, I have a problem assigning different colors to bars in a barplot. The data I'm using is the following dataframe (truncated) : > L0 r n p t [...] 18 19 1 1 RFM 19 20 1 1 RFM 20 21 2 1 RFM 21 23 6 1 RIH 22 24 2 1 ROC 23 25 1 1 ROC 24 26 1 1 ROC 25 27 2 1 ROC 26 28 2 1 RFT 27 29 1 1 RFT 28 30 2 1 RFT 29 31 1 1 ROH [...] My barplot should

After I spend some time working with the function attribute* deduction pass** [1,3], I would like to propose a "proper" organization***. Why? Because we do not derive nearly as many attributes as we could****, while we do maintain various (separate and diffently organized) "data-flow-like analyses" to do so. What else? I propose a single optimistic data-flow

I am new to R and have a problem that I haven't been able to find the answer to in the guides or online. I have multiple datasets, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7 and D8, and I would like to produce two plots side by side using mfrow.  The first plot should contain data from D1-D4, the second should contain D5-D8. I can plot these separately using the code, par(mfrow=c(1,1))