similar to: [LLVMdev] Problems with instruction scheduling

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paweł Bylica" <chfast at gmail.com> > To: "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 8:45:11 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Problems with instruction scheduling > > > > Any comments? Not in particular, but I think we're pretty close to applying a rewrite by Jonas Paulsson

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paweł Bylica" <chfast at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Jonas Paulsson" <jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com> > Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 9:19:14 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Problems with instruction scheduling > >

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:03 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Paweł Bylica" <chfast at gmail.com> > > To: "David Majnemer" <david.majnemer at gmail.com> > > Cc: "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 5:42:24 AM > > Subject: Re:

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pete Cooper" <peter_cooper at apple.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Paweł Bylica" <chfast at gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 6:42:41 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] extractelement causes memory access violation - what to

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pete Cooper" <peter_cooper at apple.com> > To: "Paweł Bylica" <chfast at gmail.com> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 12:08:37 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] extractelement causes memory access violation - what

Thanks! Currently using MCJIT. But migration to ORC is on my TODO list. - Paweł On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:30 PM Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Pawel, > > Option (1) and (3) are very similar, but using custom resolution (option > 3) guarantees that JIT'd code can't accidentally end up depending on > functions in your JIT that you didn't mean to

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:55 PM Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > Paweł Bylica <chfast at gmail.com> writes: > > I can confirm that the issue has been caused by NDEBUG flag. > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:29 PM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > > > The layout of AssertingVH has depended on NDEBUG since 2009,

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:30 PM Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > Paweł Bylica <chfast at gmail.com> writes: > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:55 PM Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> > wrote: > > > > Paweł Bylica <chfast at gmail.com> writes: > > > I can confirm that the issue has been caused by NDEBUG flag. >

Hi, I'm interested in any information about implementations of switch instruction and its runtime cost. If it's very target dependent, I'm mostly care about X86. Pointing some LLVM code is also good. - Paweł -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141027/285f02e5/attachment.html>

----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Majnemer" <david.majnemer at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Pete Cooper" <peter_cooper at apple.com>, "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 7:17:19 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] extractelement causes memory access violation

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 5:42 PM David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Paweł Bylica <chfast at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Let's have a simple program: >> define i32 @main(i32 %n, i64 %idx) { >> %idxSafe = trunc i64 %idx to i5 >> %r = extractelement <4 x i32> <i32 -1, i32

Hi, Let's have a simple program: define i32 @main(i32 %n, i64 %idx) { %idxSafe = trunc i64 %idx to i5 %r = extractelement <4 x i32> <i32 -1, i32 -1, i32 -1, i32 -1>, i64 %idx ret i32 %r } The assembly of that would be: pcmpeqd %xmm0, %xmm0 movdqa %xmm0, -24(%rsp) movl -24(%rsp,%rsi,4), %eax retq The language reference states that the extractelement instruction produces

Hi, I think ExecutionEngine as a common interface for both Interpreter and MCJIT is almost useless in the current form. There are separated methods in ExecutionEngine for similar or the same features provided by Interpreter and MCJIT, i.e. to get a pointer to function you should call getPointerToFunction() for Interpreter or getFunctionAddress() for MCJIT. Personally, I'm using MCJIT and

Hello everyone, I need some advises about (re)using ExecutionEngine with MCJIT as a driver. I'm developing a service that receives a piece of high-level code, compiles it into LLVM IR function "main" and uses MCJIT to execute the function. It can happen that the same piece of code is sent to the service many times. I would like to cache the results (keep generated machine code

Hi LLVMdev, I have a test that checks if CodeGen implements shift instruction for illegal types correctly. The test itself checks the runtime result of the operation using lli tool. This runtime check approach is quite different from tests in test/CodeGen, as they use llc tool mainly. Should my test be places somewhere else? Or should it be reimplemented? http://reviews.llvm.org/D7752 - Paweł

Ok, thanks. Are there any plans to reintroduce it on the IR level? I'm not confident this is strictly necessary, but in some cases not having load widening ends up really bad. Like in the case where vectorizer tries to do something about it: https://godbolt.org/z/60RuEw https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42708 At the current state I'm forced to use memset() to express uint64 load from

I can confirm that the issue has been caused by NDEBUG flag. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:29 PM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > The layout of AssertingVH has depended on NDEBUG since 2009, which > predates any of our efforts to make LLVM's ABI resilient to mismatched > NDEBUG definitions between LLVM and its users. > > For now, make sure your definition of NDEBUG

On 06/26/2015 08:42 AM, David Majnemer wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Paweł Bylica <chfast at gmail.com > <mailto:chfast at gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi, > > Let's have a simple program: > define i32 @main(i32 %n, i64 %idx) { > %idxSafe = trunc i64 %idx to i5 > %r = extractelement <4 x i32> <i32 -1, i32

Hi LLVM, Lang. I'm looking for a advice here. And I truly understand very little what the relocations are and how they work. The problem I want to solve is the case where a jitted code has to call back the host application to query additional data. I can think of 3 possible solutions: 1. Use built-in relocation resolver (in default memory manager?) and allow the JIT to find the

There are two unexpected failures in the check-all (this check-all runs with self-build-clang): Failing Tests (2): Clang Tools :: clang-tidy/clang-tidy-diff.cpp Clang Tools :: clang-tidy/file-filter.cpp Last log: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x64-ninja-win7/builds/340/steps/ninja%20check%202/logs/stdio From: Yaron Keren [mailto:yaron.keren at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April