similar to: Hash of a module

Yes, I'm running all the existing passes that I know how to run. I didn't know they returned change-made. Thanks! On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Artur Pilipenko < apilipenko at azulsystems.com> wrote: > Are you going to run some of the existing passes? Why can’t you just use > the returned change-made value from the passes? > > Artur > > > On 20 Dec 2015, at

| (canonicalizeOperands swaps arguments of an and and then ReassociateExpression swaps them back). That feels like its own bug, canonicalize and reassociate having different opinions of canonical order. Just saying. --paulr From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Artur Pilipenko via llvm-dev Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 9:11 AM To: Russell Wallace Cc: llvm-dev

Hi, I'm interested in finding ways to reduce code size. LLVM's MergeFunctions pass seems like a promising option, and I'm curious about its status in tree. Enabling MergeFunctions gives a 1% code size reduction across the entire iOS shared cache (a collection of a few hundred system-critical DSO's). The numbers are even more compelling for Swift code. In fact, the swift compiler

Hi Stepan, After discovering several bugs in ArgumentPromotion and DeadArgumentElimination where llvm::Functions were replaced with similar functions (with the same name) to transform their type in some way, I started looking at all calls to llvm::Function::takeName to see if there were any other debug info quality bugs in similar callers. One such caller is MergeFunctions, and I don't see

Hi Nikita, Glad to hear that Rust code can benefit a lot from this. I have put patches to enable merge-similar functions with thinLTO. https://reviews.llvm.org/D52896 etc. <https://reviews.llvm.org/D52896> This is more powerful than existing merge-functions pass and all we need to do is port these patches to trunk llvm. I'd be happy to help with this effort. -Aditya

Hi all, I propose simple improvement for MergeFunctions pass, that reduced its complexity from O(N^2) to O(log(N)), where N is number of functions in module. The idea, is to replace the result of comparison from "bool" to "-1,0,1". In another words: define order relation on functions set. To be sure, that functions could be comparable that way, we have to prove that order

Hello, We would like to propose making LoopVectorize aware of SLP operations, to improve the generated code for loops operating on struct fields or doing complex math. At the moment, LoopVectorize uses interleaving to vectorize loops that operate on values loaded/stored from consecutive addresses: vector loads/stores are generated to combine consecutive loads/stores and then shufflevector

Hi all, I'm considering adding debug metadata logic to llvm-diff, but it looks like some heavy refactoring will be needed to do so. Who's the owner of it? There is too much logic in DifferenceEngine, classes being declared in the cpp file, sub-classes of DifferenceEngine that could be used by the metadata diff, but with the current style (FunctionDifferenceEngine(*this)) will be hard to

Hi Tobias, > I can't really see a way to combine our approach with your patch. What > are your thoughts? I think it is possible. Even more - we need to combine our efforts, in order to bring this pass into real live. I'have read your presentation file, and unfortunately read your patch only a little. How exactly you scan functions on 2nd stage? Could you explain the algorithm in

Hi David, After merging we always remove body of "G" (function we want to merge with "existing" one). In case with "writeThunk" we could add such info for "G", but it would be just a single string: reference to first string of "G". Ideal way here, is to merge debug information itself, and provide "F" with information for "G"

Hi Jean-Daniel On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Jean-Daniel Dupas <devlists at shadowlab.org>wrote: > > Le 19 oct. 2009 à 15:05, Kenneth Uildriks a écrit : > FWIW, there is a LLVM bar camp planed in Paris the next month: > > http://barcamp.org/LLVM%20BarCamp%20Paris (French web page) > > > -- Jean-Daniel > Could you please tell me if it will be in French or

Hi all, Please find the updated patch in attachment: * Added some comments. * Fixed some typos. -Stepan Nick Lewycky wrote: > On 30 January 2014 01:27, Stepan Dyatkovskiy <stpworld at narod.ru > <mailto:stpworld at narod.ru>> wrote: > > Hello Sean and Tobias, > > Sean, > Thank you. Could you describe Nick's ideas in few words or give me >

Hi Nick. Can you help me sort some things out in MergeFucntions pass. While I was working on MergeFunctions pass I got several questions. I hardly tried to find all the answers by myself, but there are still two questions without answer. It is about merging functions itself (not comparing). First question is: Why sometimes we use RAUW and sometimes replaceDirectCallers. Would you help me

Hi all, Previous patch has been split onto series of small changes. On each stage (after each patch) MergeFunctions pass is compilable and stable. Please find patches in attachment for review. To apply all patches at once, use "apply-patches.sh" script as follows: 0. Place "apply-patches.sh" in same directory with patches. 1. cd <llvm-sources-dir> 2. "bash

After cloning a Module with CloneModule, there doesn't seem to be any easy way to convert a Value pointing into the old Module to a Value pointing into the new one. The CloneModule implementation already has to keep such a mapping internally, so I've written a patch that exposes it as a second inout parameter to CloneModule(), with the one param version being a simple wrapper for backward

Le 20 oct. 2009 à 10:27, Artur Pietrek a écrit : > Hi Jean-Daniel > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Jean-Daniel Dupas <devlists at shadowlab.org > > wrote: > > Le 19 oct. 2009 à 15:05, Kenneth Uildriks a écrit : > FWIW, there is a LLVM bar camp planed in Paris the next month: > > http://barcamp.org/LLVM%20BarCamp%20Paris (French web page) > > > --

On 27 October 2013 11:30, Stepan Dyatkovskiy <stpworld at narod.ru> wrote: > Hi Nick. > > Can you help me sort some things out in MergeFucntions pass. While I was > working on MergeFunctions pass I got several questions. I hardly tried to > find all the answers by myself, but there are still two questions without > answer. > > It is about merging functions itself

I have a problem for specific mailbox. In mail.err file I see a lot: Nov 2 07:41:17 s1 dovecot: imap(artur at example.pl): Error: unlink(/var/vmail/example.pl/artur/Maildir/dovecot.index.cache) failed: No such file or directory (in mail-cache.c:28) Nov 2 07:41:17 s1 dovecot: imap(artur at example.pl): Error: Corrupted index cache file /var/vmail/example.pl/artur/Maildir/dovecot.index.cache:

Sorry if this has been discussed already... I am trying to understand whether there is an underlying reason why llvm::CloneModule takes argument function ShouldCloneDefinition to discriminate on objects being cloned, but blindly copies all named metadata...? In my case this results in debug nodes that are creating uses/relocations for global objects that were _not_ copied per

Hi, I'm trying to optimize a pattern like this into a single i16 load: %1 = bitcast i16* %pData to i8* %2 = load i8, i8* %1, align 1 %3 = zext i8 %2 to i16 %4 = shl nuw i16 %3, 8 %5 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %1, i16 1 %6 = load i8, i8* %5, align 1 %7 = zext i8 %6 to i16 %8 = shl nuw nsw i16 %7, 0 %9 = or i16 %8, %4 I came across load combine pass which is motivated