similar to: Editing metadata

This is about the best idea. There's no way to take the non-temporary md nodes back to temporary. -eric On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:12 AM Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Abstractly, (I don't get inside this code as much as I should) debug info > works on a translation-unit basis, not a function basis, so regenerating a > single

Yup that is quite similar to my use case, but in addition I use LLVM to JIT as well from C using MCJIT. I have a patch for a DIBuilder binding, but it does change the API a bit, so depending on how this discussion goes, it can or cannot be added. It was necessary as the current binding wrap all metadata in values, which is very wasteful when dealing with a large amount of metadata. The breakage

On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 9:49 PM deadal nix <deadalnix at gmail.com> wrote: > 2015-08-16 21:47 GMT-07:00 Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>: > >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 6:45 PM deadal nix via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> Chiming in with http://reviews.llvm.org/D10725 >>> >>>

Hi all, One area where LLVM suck pretty badly is aggregate store and loads. clang do not use them so there are not seen as important, and aren't handled nicely. Other frontends work around the issue as it is not handled properly and we ends up with some kind of chicken and egg issue. I recently proposed a diff to be able to optimize load from aggregate stores in GVN without great success.

2015-08-17 11:26 GMT-07:00 Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>: > Hi, > > On Aug 17, 2015, at 12:13 AM, deadal nix via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > 2015-08-16 23:21 GMT-07:00 David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com>: > >> >> >> Because a solution which doesn't generalize is not a very powerful

I've definitely "run into this problem", and I would very much love to remove my kludges [that are incomplete, because I keep finding places where I need to modify the code-gen to "fix" the same problem - this is probably par for the course from a complete amateur compiler writer and someone that has only spent the last 14 months working (as a hobby) with LLVM]. So whilst

On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 6:45 PM deadal nix via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Chiming in with http://reviews.llvm.org/D10725 > > Being able to read and generate IR is at least some very basic thing we > can agree on is needed. Can we get some testing for it ? Personally I don't > really mind if this is going to be stable or not, but at least, having some

OK from what I understand, the DAG.getSExtOrTrunc(SetCC, DL, SelectVT) is unecessary and the SelectVT is nto the right type (as it is called with incorrect parameter). Here is a patch so it won't generate a loop. I ran make check and it doesn't look like anything is broken. 2014-07-07 11:36 GMT-07:00 Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com>: > > On Jul 5, 2014, at 7:14 PM,

----- Original Message ----- > From: "deadal nix" <deadalnix at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 1:24:04 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Aggreate load/store, proposed plan >

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "deadal nix" <deadalnix at gmail.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 7:24:28 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Aggreate load/store, proposed plan > > Hi, > > To be sure,

Even if I turn to -O0 [in other words, no optimisation passes at all], it takes the same amount of time. The time is spent in 12.94% lacsap lacsap [.] llvm::SDNode::use_iterator::operator== 7.68% lacsap lacsap [.] llvm::SDNode::use_iterator::operator* 7.53% lacsap lacsap [.] llvm::SelectionDAG::ReplaceAllUsesOfValueWith 7.28% lacsap

OK, so in you case, you want DAG.getSExtOrTrunc(SetCC, DL, SelectVT) to tunc the result from i64 to i32 on 64 bits targets, if I understand correctly. 2 questions: - Why not generating a selectcc node directly ? It avoid having to mess up with intermediate values. - Why calling getSetCCResultType(VT) ? VT is not the type of a parameter of setcc, and this looks incorrect to me. 2014-07-05 0:34

----- Original Message ----- > From: "deadal nix" <deadalnix at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 4:09:17 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Aggreate load/store, proposed plan >

2014-07-08 12:11 GMT-07:00 Matt Arsenault <Matthew.Arsenault at amd.com>: > On 07/07/2014 09:47 PM, deadal nix wrote: > > OK from what I understand, the DAG.getSExtOrTrunc(SetCC, DL, SelectVT) > is unecessary and the SelectVT is nto the right type (as it is called with > incorrect parameter). > > Here is a patch so it won't generate a loop. I ran make check and

On Aug 18, 2015, at 10:41 PM, deadal nix <deadalnix at gmail.com> wrote: > Let's not get this die. The C API is too valuable to let this die. > > I propose the following plan: > - Add tests for the current API. This will allow to make sure that everything works and would ensure that changes are made intentionally, nto accidentally. > - For area that do not exist in the

On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 10:34 PM, deadal nix via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > 2015-08-16 21:51 GMT-07:00 Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>: >> >> The promise of stability. We don't promise that the C++ API will stay >> stable. >> > > > Why was that promise be made in the first place ? Has it been made in the >

Hi, I'm working on a target which have a variable size for CC (the same size as the arguments). As a result getSetCCResultType, return a variable size. In this commit, at the line DAG.getSExtOrTrunc(SetCC, DL, SelectVT), on my target, you end up generating the Node you are replacing, and so creating a loop in the DAG, which give a whole new meaning to the A in the acronym. Subsequent code

It is pretty clear people need this. Let's get this moving. I'll try to sum up the point that have been made and I'll try to address them carefully. 1/ There is no good solution for large aggregates. That is true. However, I don't think this is a reason to not address smaller aggregates, as they appear to be needed. Realistically, the proportion of aggregates that are very large

deadal nix via llvm-dev wrote on Mon, 17 Aug 2015: > OK, what about that plan : > > Slice the aggregate into a serie of valid loads/stores for non atomic ones. > Use big scalar for atomic/volatile ones. > Try to generate memcpy or memmove when possible ? Are memcpy/memmove guaranteed to be handled inline, i.e., without a call to libc? Or are there plans to do this in the context

Lot of good points. > Yep, switching to git would require a lot of work on the project > maintainers' side. Commit hooks, setting up repositories, rewording > policies in terms of the commands of the new tools, and that only to > regain the status the project already has - [...] All of which could be done on a mirror, with pushes to svn during the transition. Once it can be