similar to: load instruction erroneously removed by GVN

On 08/07/2015 01:53 PM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote: >> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] >> On Behalf Of Mikael Holmén via llvm-dev >> Subject: [llvm-dev] load instruction erroneously removed by GVN > >> But between the load and the alloca there is also >> call fastcc void @format_long(i16* %_tmp30, i16 10, i32 10), !dbg !22 >>

Hi, On 08/07/2015 10:30 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: [...] > Depends. What is the exact declaration of format_long? > > > In the input .ll file it is: > > ; Function Attrs: minsize optsize > define internal i16 @format_long(i16* %res.8.par, i16 %base.9.par, > i32 %x.10.par) #3 { > > which is later changed somewhere in opt to: > > ;

Hello everyone ! I am trying to get the dependencies for the variables of ICMP instructions. Do you know if I can use an already existing method? I tried to use getDependency() method of class MemoryDependenceAnalysis. Does it work only for particular instruction types? Its definition is MemDepResult MemoryDependenceAnalysis::getDependency ( Instruction * QueryInst ) When I running my pass

Hi, It seems that opt thinks that the two pointers %_tmp2 = getelementptr [3 x i16], [3 x i16]* %a, i16 0, i64 1 and %_tmp4 = getelementptr [3 x i16], [3 x i16]* %a, i16 0, i16 1 does not alias? Is this intended or a bug? Details below: -------------- I found this when I ran opt on: define i16 @f () { %a = alloca [3 x i16] ; Write 98 at index 1 in the array. ; NB: using i64 as

Dear list, I have been struggling to get working a PDC using Samba with LDAP backend, in a fresh Debian Sarge install. 1. SeMachineAccountPrivilege I'm reading IDEALX's Linux Samba-OpenLDAP Howto as guidance. In my last attempt, everything appeared to be fine until the very end, the Integration test, when I added an admin user, got it on the "Domain Admin" and then tried to

Hi, I've stumbled upon a case where I think gvn does a bad (wrong) optimization. It's a bit messy to debug though so I'm not sure if I should just write a PR about it a let someone who knows the code look at it instead. Anyway, for the bug to trigger I need to run the following passes in the same opt invocation: -sroa -instcombine -simplifycfg -instcombine -gvn The problem

Thanks for quick reply Daniel, I tried to make a simple C testcase, but could not reproduce the same condition with output from Clang. I suppose I could modify the C code to make it look similar with TBAA's; I may be able to provide this by eod. > store %ptr above the load. My mistake; I was referring to the store $lcssa in bb2. Looking at the C source code, it should definitely alias

before inlining all 20005 after inlining somewhere here changed made it NoAlias after Global Variable Optimizer 20014 20373 20255 20372 20254 before GVN 19993 20011 19991 20010 20030 It appears that TBAA metadata certainly changed after inlining and subsequent passes. I have attached the .bc file. I think I will try to dump out more TBAA metadata between passes. The method in

On 10/09/2017 03:57 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > FWIW: Bootstrap is probably not a good test of this, there are bugs > filed where we end up with tons of loads and stores to test against > each other. That's actually fairly rare in bootstrap, as you can see. > Let me get you some test cases. > > My guess is that we should go with mustmod. I agree. -Hal > > >

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > FWIW: Bootstrap is probably not a good test of this, there are bugs filed > where we end up with tons of loads and stores to test against each other. > That's actually fairly rare in bootstrap, as you can see. > Let me get you some test cases. > SG, thanks! > > My guess is that we

Thanks for all the great responses on tools to use - I have Exact Audio Copy and CDex working very well, and I've been working out all the kinks. Two questions, one very Vorbis related, one not :) 1) I know people have asked many times "What quality should I use". Well, I want to ask it again but in a narrower frame. I see less than 10% difference in size between 4.99 and 5.00 -

Yes, this is odd. On my clang.bc Without: 2.2967 ( 53.8%) 0.0242 ( 26.4%) 2.3210 ( 53.2%) 2.3227 ( 53.2%) Memory SSA 2.3364 ( 53.7%) 0.0246 ( 25.7%) 2.3610 ( 53.1%) 2.3636 ( 53.1%) Memory SSA 2.3353 ( 54.0%) 0.0258 ( 27.0%) 2.3611 ( 53.4%) 2.3632 ( 53.3%) Memory SSA With two getModRefInfo calls: 3.0302 ( 58.8%) 0.0328 ( 29.9%) 3.0630 ( 58.2%) 3.0858 ( 58.2%)

Hi, [resurrecting an old mail thread about AddressSanitizer false positive caused by load widening] Once the Attribute::AddressSafety is set by clang (a separate patch), fixing this bug may look as simple as this: --- lib/Analysis/MemoryDependenceAnalysis.cpp (revision 148708) +++ lib/Analysis/MemoryDependenceAnalysis.cpp (working copy) @@ -323,6 +323,14 @@

Hello to whom this may concern, Versioned this as I saw identical title before. I'm compiling a clang project where I'm seeing GVN mess up and replace a load with a wrong def value. I am using LLVM-3.5, but the problem has been observed upto 3.8. To illustrate the problem, define i32 @main scalar.ph: <initialize [80 x i16] %dest> ... preheader: %index=0 br test, loop1, bb2

Howdy, I'm working on writing a dependence analyzer (rather like what LoopDependenceAnalysis wants to be, except a bit more general). While this is a problem of many parts, I'm currently focusing on finding pairs of memory references to test for dependence. Consider this contrived C code: double test2(int n, double *restrict A, double *restrict B, bool flag) { if (flag) { A[0] =

I'm trying to understand what is the result we'd seek in the example in D38569 (pasting here for quick access) double f(double a) { double b; double c,d; double (*fp) (double) __attribute__ ((const)); /* Partially redundant call */ if (a < 2.0) { fp = sin; c = fp (a); } else { c = 1.0; fp = cos; } d = fp (a);

How can extract memory dependence among of instructions. I used the following code but it find only one dep for a instruction.I want to get all dependences for an instruction. MemoryDependenceAnalysis &mda = getAnalysis<MemoryDependenceAnalysis>(); MemDepResult mdr = mda.getDependency(inst); if (mdr.isDef()) { Instruction *dep =

Hello! I am trying to retrieve all instructions from a function's body that are dependent on a specific argument. The strategy I am currently using for that is to follow all uses of the argument and record them. Also, whenever I encounter a store of a dependent value, I try to find loads in the function that are dependent on that store and resume use-tracking from there. For this purpose I am

Sorry, I misunderstood the question. The difference between a load and a read-only call is that load can be used as the value of the memory location. E.g. DeadStoreElimination pass removes a store that stores a just loaded value back into the same location. To do this it checks if the stored value is the value of load. Read-only call cannot be used like this. This being said, I don't know if

Author: rie Repository: /hg/zfs-crypto/gate Revision: 37c7c62679d7987230afdd78480cf8d105c096a6 Log message: 6372082 ld -r erroneously creates .got section on i386 6201866 amd64: linker symbol elimination is broken Files: update: usr/src/cmd/sgs/elfdump/common/elfdump.c update: usr/src/cmd/sgs/elfdump/common/elfdump.msg update: usr/src/cmd/sgs/libld/amd64/machrel.c update: