similar to: [LLVMdev] Handling of undef in the IR

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > I presume you mean, instead of assigning function arguments distinct ranks > (http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/Reassociate_8cpp_source.html#l00282), we > should group function arguments in favor of existing pairings. Existing = pairings reassociate already chose before *not* existing

Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: > Ok, the LLVM 2.7 release notes are in near final shape. Please take > a look and suggest improvements (or, better yet, just commit > improvements if you have commit access): About the API changes, some that hit me when I ported some code to LLVM 2.7, and not in the release notes (I had sent a private email some time ago) : ---

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:16 AM Mark Heffernan <meheff at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > >> It is not clear to me at all that preventing the merging is the right >> solution. There are a large number of analysis, including alias analysis, >> and optimizations that use GetUnderlyingObject, and

Ok, the LLVM 2.7 release notes are in near final shape. Please take a look and suggest improvements (or, better yet, just commit improvements if you have commit access): http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html Things still needed are marked with FIXMEs. These include: 1. Clang needs a blurb describing what's new in 2.7. Have the clang folks been doing anything for the last 6 months? 2. I

I've found what appears to be a bug in instcombine. Specifically, the transformation of -(X/C) to X/(-C) is invalid if C == INT_MIN. Specifically, if I have > define i32 @foo(i32 %x) #0 { > entry: > %div = sdiv i32 %x, -2147483648 > %sub = sub nsw i32 0, %div > ret i32 %sub > } then opt -instcombine will produce > define i32 @foo(i32 %x) #0 { > entry: > %sub

Thanks, I must have missed these, added. On Apr 22, 2010, at 1:28 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: > >> Ok, the LLVM 2.7 release notes are in near final shape. Please take >> a look and suggest improvements (or, better yet, just commit >> improvements if you have commit access): > > About the API changes, some that hit

On 11/17/2011 12:38 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: > Tobias, et al., > > Attached is the my autovectorization pass. Very nice. Will you be at the developer summit? Maybe we could discuss the integration there? Here a first review of the source code. > diff --git a/docs/Passes.html b/docs/Passes.html > index 5c42f3f..076effa 100644 > --- a/docs/Passes.html > +++ b/docs/Passes.html

Tobias, et al., Attached is the my autovectorization pass. I've fixed a bug that appears when using -bb-vectorize-aligned-only, fixed some 80-col violations, etc., and at least on x86_64, all test cases pass except for a few; and all of these failures look like instruction-selection bugs. For example: MultiSource/Applications/ClamAV - fails to compile shared_sha256.c with an error: error in

Tobias, I've attached the latest version of my autovectorization patch. I was able to add support for using the ScalarEvolution analysis for load/store pairing (thanks for your help!). This led to a modest performance increase and a modest compile-time increase. This version also has a cutoff as you suggested (although the default value is set high (4000 instructions between pairs) because

Here's a sketch of what I am proposing for ConstantBuilder. I'd like feedback on naming conventions, doc comments, etc. //===-- llvm/Support/ConstantBuilder.h - Builder for Constants --*- C++ -*-===// // // The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure // // This file is distributed under the University of Illinois Open Source // License. See LICENSE.TXT for details. //

There are at least 3 active proposals to add reassociative optimizations in IR: [1] D41574 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D41574>- a new pass for reassociation/factoring [2] D46336 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D46336> - enhance -instcombine to do more reassociation/factoring [3] D45842 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D45842> - add to the existing -reassociate pass to enable factoring

Hi, I encountered some bugs in Reassociate [1] where we are hitting some assertions: assert(!Duplicates.count(Factor) && "Shouldn't have two constant factors, missed a canonicalize"); assert(NumAddedValues > 1 && "Each occurrence should contribute a value”); My understanding is that these assertions enforce that when processing an

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:15 AM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> ( >>> ​I came across this issue in

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:24 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:15 AM

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > ( > ​I came across this issue in the context of > D46336 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D46336>. > ​ ​ > Thanks, Sanjay, for starting this discussion.) > > If > ​we will > move > ​reassociation, > or keep additional ones > ​,​ > out of instcombine,

( ​I came across this issue in the context of D46336 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D46336>. ​ ​ Thanks, Sanjay, for starting this discussion.) If ​we will move ​reassociation, or keep additional ones ​,​ out of instcombine, ​open questions for me would be ​​: 1. Since -reassociate isn't a fixed point pass, we might need to repeat "-instcombine -reassociate" multiple times to

> On May 8, 2018, at 9:50 AM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > 1. The reassociate pass that exists right now was *originally* (AFAIK) written to enable CSE/GVN to do better. Agreed. The original mindset included a (naive) belief that going with a canonical form was better than teaching redundancy elimination to handle abstractions (as a matter

Duncan, I would like to merge r168035, r168181 and r168291 as one reassociate changeset: Have you heard from Chris regarding r168291? http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121112/156364.html Pawel > On 20/11/12 05:57, Chris Lattner wrote: >> Fwiw, I approve both of these patches if they are still unmerged. > ... >>>

>> On Feb 2, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I encountered some bugs in Reassociate [1] where we are hitting some >> assertions: >> >> assert(!Duplicates.count(Factor) && >> "Shouldn't have two constant factors, missed a >> canonicalize");

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:24 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:15 AM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:38 AM,