Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] X86 disassembler is quite broken on handling REX"
2014 Dec 24
2
[LLVMdev] X86 disassembler is quite broken on handling REX
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I believe this particular error is caused by this. That seems easy enough
> to just drop the bit. Do you have other non-mmx examples?
>
> case TYPE_MM: \
> if (index > 7) \
> *valid = 0;
2010 Dec 16
1
[LLVMdev] x86 disassembler: if-statement with redundant branch
Hi there!
In the x86 disassembler I noticed an if-statement with a
duplicated branch. Are these intended to be identical?
Best regards,
Nicolas Kaiser
--
diff -ur llvm-2.8.orig/lib/Target/X86/Disassembler/X86DisassemblerDecoder.c llvm-2.8/lib/Target/X86/Disassembler/X86DisassemblerDecoder.c
--- llvm-2.8.orig/lib/Target/X86/Disassembler/X86DisassemblerDecoder.c 2010-05-06 22:59:00.000000000 +0200
2005 Mar 23
3
[PATCH] promised MMX patches rc1
Hello,
Here is my first speedup patch. Like 10-11%. No IDCT yet.
Please feel free to comment my code or even better think about
improvements. :) I belive my routines are not so bad, maybe
one day they will be even more faster.
What needs to be optimized is the loop filter fuction. I have
no ideas now how to do it. It does not leave much space for parallel
stuff, copying memory from lot of
2004 Aug 24
5
MMX/mmxext optimisations
quite some speed improvement indeed.
attached the updated patch to apply to svn/trunk.
j
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: theora-mmx.patch.gz
Type: application/x-gzip
Size: 8648 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora-dev/attachments/20040824/5a5f2731/theora-mmx.patch-0001.bin
2013 Sep 12
1
[LLVMdev] [patch] remove redundant code in X86DisassemblerDecoder.c
there is an if-else code in X86DisassemblerDecoder.c that does exactly the
same thing on both paths. so this patch removes the redundant path.
thanks,
Jun
diff --git a/lib/Target/X86/Disassembler/X86DisassemblerDecoder.c
b/lib/Target/X86/Disassembler/X86DisassemblerDecoder.c
index 20e61da..3932ea1 100644
--- a/lib/Target/X86/Disassembler/X86DisassemblerDecoder.c
+++
2010 Oct 20
2
[LLVMdev] llvm register reload/spilling around calls
On 20.10.2010 05:00, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2010, at 6:37 PM, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
>
>> Thanks for giving it a look!
>>
>> On 19.10.2010 23:21, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote:
>>> On Oct 19, 2010, at 11:40 AM, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
>>>
>>>> So I saw that the code is doing lots of register
>>>>
2010 Oct 20
0
[LLVMdev] llvm register reload/spilling around calls
On Oct 20, 2010, at 7:46 AM, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
> On 20.10.2010 05:00, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote:
>> Look in X86InstrControl.td. The call instructions are all prefixed
>> by:
>>
>> let Defs = [RAX, RCX, RDX, RSI, RDI, R8, R9, R10, R11, FP0, FP1, FP2,
>> FP3, FP4, FP5, FP6, ST0, ST1, MM0, MM1, MM2, MM3, MM4, MM5, MM6, MM7,
>> XMM0, XMM1, XMM2, XMM3,
2010 Oct 20
1
[LLVMdev] llvm register reload/spilling around calls
(repost with right sender address)
On 20.10.2010 18:13, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2010, at 7:46 AM, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
>
>> On 20.10.2010 05:00, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote:
>>> Look in X86InstrControl.td. The call instructions are all prefixed
>>> by:
>>>
>>> let Defs = [RAX, RCX, RDX, RSI, RDI, R8, R9, R10, R11, FP0, FP1,
2010 Oct 20
0
[LLVMdev] llvm register reload/spilling around calls
On Oct 19, 2010, at 6:37 PM, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
> Thanks for giving it a look!
>
> On 19.10.2010 23:21, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 2010, at 11:40 AM, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
>>
>>> So I saw that the code is doing lots of register
>>> spilling/reloading. Now I understand that due to calling
>>> conventions, there's not
2010 Oct 20
3
[LLVMdev] llvm register reload/spilling around calls
Thanks for giving it a look!
On 19.10.2010 23:21, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2010, at 11:40 AM, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
>
>> So I saw that the code is doing lots of register
>> spilling/reloading. Now I understand that due to calling
>> conventions, there's not really a way to avoid this - I tried using
>> coldcc but apparently the backend
2007 Jun 19
3
[LLVMdev] TargetRegisterClass for Physical Register
On Monday 18 June 2007 19:02, Christopher Lamb wrote:
> Take a look at getPhysicalRegisterRegClass(
> const MRegisterInfo *MRI,
> MVT::ValueType VT,
> unsigned reg)
>
> in ScheduleDAG.cpp.
Yuck. I was afraid of that.
What is the ValueType needed for? Isn't the register id itself an indication
of the ValueType it represents? Where I'm at I
2008 Sep 03
2
[LLVMdev] Codegen/Register allocation question.
Hi LLVMers,
I have finally sorted out licensing issues and found some time, so I'm
trying to port my PBQP register allocator to 2.4 in order to
contribute it (if you want it). I've run into a bug that has me
confused though.
I'm currently failing the following assertion:
llc: VirtRegMap.cpp:1733:
void<unnamed>::LocalSpiller::RewriteMBB(llvm::MachineBasicBlock&,
2005 Aug 17
2
MMX loop filter for theora-exp
Hello,
I would like to announce the semi-optimized oc_state_loop_filter_frag_rows
It gains like 7% speedup. Unfortunately it has some issues:
1) wont compile on 64bit (I will fix it later hopefully)
2) is not yet fully optimized (instruction stalls)
Here are the results.
CPU: Athlon, speed 1466.91 MHz (estimated)
Counted CPU_CLK_UNHALTED events (Cycles outside of halt state) with a unit mask
2011 Oct 26
0
[LLVMdev] Lowering to MMX
On Oct 26, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Nicolas Capens wrote:
> On 24/10/2011 9:50 PM, Bill Wendling wrote:
>> On Oct 20, 2011, at 8:42 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'm working on a graphics project which uses LLVM for dynamic code
>>> generation, and I noticed a major performance regression when upgrading
>>> from LLVM
2004 Sep 10
2
An assembly optimization and fix
I have optimized FLAC__fixed_compute_best_predictor_asm_ia32_mmx_cmov
function and fixed bug when data_len == 0. Now the function is about
50% faster and flac -5 is about 5% faster on my box. I have tested it
thoroughly, I think it can go to flac 1.0.4.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
-------------- next part --------------
--- src/libFLAC/ia32/fixed_asm.nasm.orig 2002-01-26 19:05:12.000000000 +0100
+++
2011 Oct 26
2
[LLVMdev] Lowering to MMX
Hi Bill,
Comments inline:
On 24/10/2011 9:50 PM, Bill Wendling wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 8:42 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm working on a graphics project which uses LLVM for dynamic code
>> generation, and I noticed a major performance regression when upgrading
>> from LLVM 2.8 to 3.0-rc1 (LLVM 2.9 didn't support Win64 so I
2007 Jun 18
2
[LLVMdev] TargetRegisterClass for Physical Register
How do I get the TargetRegisterClass for a physical register?
SSARegMap::getRegClass only works for virtual registers.
-Dave
2007 Jun 19
0
[LLVMdev] TargetRegisterClass for Physical Register
Take a look at getPhysicalRegisterRegClass(
const MRegisterInfo *MRI,
MVT::ValueType VT,
unsigned reg)
in ScheduleDAG.cpp.
--
Christopher Lamb
On Jun 18, 2007, at 4:52 PM, David A. Greene wrote:
> How do I get the TargetRegisterClass for a physical register?
> SSARegMap::getRegClass only works for virtual registers.
>
>
2005 Mar 23
0
[PATCH]
Hello,
Here is my first speedup patch. Like 10-11%. No IDCT yet.
Please feel free to comment my code or even better think about
improvements. :) I belive my routines are not so bad, maybe
one day they will be even more faster.
What needs to be optimized is the loop filter fuction. I have
no ideas now how to do it. It does not leave much space for parallel
stuff, copying memory from lot of
2010 Aug 31
0
[LLVMdev] "equivalent" .ll files diverge after optimizations are applied
Using MM registers is wrong unless the user has specifically asked for
it, which doesn't seem to be the case here.
In the awesome MMX architecture, touching an MM register makes
subsequent x87 operations fail unless an EMMS instruction is issued
first; none of the compilers here are smart enough to insert EMMS
instructions in the right places, so the only safe thing is not to use