similar to: [AArch64] bug in shrink-wrapping

Hi Arnaud, Thanks for following up with that and sorry for the breakage. Couple of comments: MachineLoopInfo *MLI; + RegScavenger *RS; Would it make sense to use a unique_ptr here? That should eliminate the need of having explicit deletes. +; RUN: llc -mtriple=aarch64-linux-gnu -o - %s Add -enable-shrink-wrap=true and a second RUN line with -enable-shrink-wrap=false. Then add check lines

So far, all I have tried is -O3 and with & without "-mcpu=cortex-a57". I'm new to LLVM so I'm not familiar with what optimization flags are available. I tried poking around in the LLVM documentation but haven't found a definitive list. The clang man page is skimpy on details. From: Arnaud A. de Grandmaison [mailto:arnaud.degrandmaison at arm.com] Sent: Monday, February

% clang -S -O3 -mcpu=cortex-a57 -ffast-math -Rpass-analysis=loop-vectorize dot.c dot.c:15:1: remark: loop not vectorized: value that could not be identified as reduction is used outside the loop [-Rpass-analysis=loop-vectorize] } ^ dot.c:15:1: note: could not determine the original source location for :0:0 I found “llvm-as < /dev/null | llc -march=aarch64 -mattr=help” which listed a

Both approaches are not exclusive. I would even think it makes sense to have a pre-split pass to prepare the graph, with a global view, and later on use use trySplit (or an equivalent) to handle the local coloring issues. From: Quentin Colombet [mailto:qcolombet at apple.com] Sent: 09 March 2015 23:08 To: Lang Hames Cc: Jonas Paulsson; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu; Arnaud De Grandmaison Subject:

Hi, Shrink-wrapping capabilities, i.e., better placement of prologue and epilogue sequences, landed in r236507 but are not yet enabled by default. Since r236507 AArch64 is shrink-wrapping ready, meaning we can turn the pass on for this target. I’ve done the same for X86 in r 238293. Now, I need your help to test and benchmark how shrink-wrapping perform on those targets. The goal is to decide

Hi Quentin, Jonas, Splitting fits in with PBQP reasonably well, at least conceptually. The PBQP graph is designed to be mutable, so there is no problem with updating it when splitting. As I see it, there are two logical places to integrate splitting into PBQP: 1) Split during spilling -- If a PBQP solution selects the spill option for a node, rather than spill immediately, split the interval

I'm using Fedora 22 and gcc 4.9.2 to run llvm 3.5.1 on an ARM Juno reference box (cortex A53 & A57). I tried compiling some simple functions like dot product and axpy() into assembly to see if any of the SIMD instructions were generated (they weren't). Perhaps I'm missing some compiler flag to enable it. Does anyone know what the status is for aarch64 generating SIMD instructions?

Hi, I have worked a little on the PBQP register allocator, and it is quite clear (at least to me) that it is not even a serious alternative to RegAllocGreedy at the moment, due to the poor handling of spilling. As Arnaud wrote below, it is not optimizing spilling at all, but rather just spills anything that does not get an assignment. The result is a lot more spill/reload instructions than

Hi Lang, In PBQPBuilderWithCoalescing::build, around line 360, we have code looking like: … PBQP::Vector newCosts(g.getNodeCosts(node)); addPhysRegCoalesce(newCosts, pregOpt, cBenefit); g.setNodeCosts(node, newCosts); … I suspect the leak occurs around the setNodeCosts method, and I have trouble understanding how it handles the case where the node already has costs. It seems to

I honestly do not know how to fix that --- I would otherwise I've committed a fix. I've been able to hack it locally exploiting the very same lit limitation then the one we're stumbling on (i.e it does not resolve dependency correctly and only pick-up the first constraint). You need to make sure the Flask constraint is seen first, even before using the requirements.txt so on the

Oooh. Neat. Thanks Dave. Please go ahead and commit that. Arnaud - I have no idea whether Dave's patch will help with this bug, but it's certainly worth testing. - Lang. On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:10 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > While I'm not sure where the leak is, using some pre-canned memory > management might help... > > Attached is a

I think that will work. We should actually fix it to work with .11. It is a dot release, the changes are minor. Sent from my iPhone > On May 31, 2016, at 6:34 AM, Kristof Beyls via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I hope I've fixed this properly just now in http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=271274. > Fingers crossed that the

Hello, So, I have this testcase: void f(int n, int x[]) { if (n < 0) return; int a[n]; for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) a[i] = x[n - i - 1]; for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) x[i] = a[i] + 1; } that, compiled with -O1/-Os for AArch64 and X86, generates machine code, which fails to properly restore the stack pointer upon function return.

I hope I've fixed this properly just now in http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=271274. Fingers crossed that the bots will come back now... On 30 May 2016, at 21:01, Arnaud De Grandmaison <Arnaud.DeGrandmaison at arm.com<mailto:Arnaud.DeGrandmaison at arm.com>> wrote: I honestly do not know how to fix that --- I would otherwise I've committed a fix.

Hi Lang, While working on improving the debug dumps of the PBQP graphs, I found out that we can have some edges between nodes which belong to totally disjoint register classes (for example, on AArch64, this would be an int and a floating point register). Although it is true those 2 registers interferes, in the sense they are alive at the same time, they never have any physical interference,

> -----Original Message----- > From: Hal Finkel [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov] > Sent: 04 November 2014 17:16 > To: Arnaud De Grandmaison > Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] lifetime.start/end clarification > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Arnaud A. de Grandmaison" <arnaud.degrandmaison at arm.com> > > To:

Hello Momchil, (CC’ing more people that could correct me if I’m wrong) Thanks for looking into this. More answers below: > On 9 Apr 2018, at 17:57, Momchil Velikov via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > So, I have this testcase: > > void f(int n, int x[]) { > if (n < 0) > return; > > int a[n]; >

Renato, Kristof, I confirm this is due to the latest Flask --- Flask-0.11 was released this weekend --- and for some unknown (to me at least) reason, although LNT's requirements.txt pins Flask to version 0.10.1, pip installs Flask-0.11. Forcing Flask to 0.10.1 gets the situation back to normal. Reading pip's documentation makes me think it's not able to resolve dependencies

On 30 May 2016 at 12:25, Arnaud De Grandmaison <Arnaud.DeGrandmaison at arm.com> wrote: > I confirm this is due to the latest Flask --- Flask-0.11 was released this > weekend --- and for some unknown (to me at least) reason, although LNT's > requirements.txt pins Flask to version 0.10.1, pip installs Flask-0.11. > Forcing Flask to 0.10.1 gets the situation back to normal. Do

The LRM (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#llvm-lifetime-start-intrinsic) essentially states that: - ptr is dead before a call to "lifetime.start size, ptr" - ptr is dead after a call to "lifetime.end size, ptr" This is all good and fine, and the expected use case is that all "lifetime.end size, ptr" markers are matched with a preceding "lifetime.start