similar to: Can someone give me some pointer on alias analysis ?

2015-12-26 18:32 GMT+01:00 Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>: > On 12/26/2015 02:17 AM, Amaury SECHET via llvm-dev wrote: > > I'm trying to fix that bug: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=20049 > > It turns out this is the kind of optimization that I really need, as when > it isn't done, all kind of other optimizations opportunities down the road

On 01/04/2016 07:32 AM, Amaury SECHET wrote: > After a bit more investigation, it turns out that because %0 is stored > into %1 (after bitcast) and so %3 may have access to it and clobber it. Can you give a bit more context? I'm not sure which of the examples you're talking about. > > After a bit of thought, it is correct in the general case, but > definitively something

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 9:55 AM, Amaury SECHET via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > 2016-01-04 18:21 GMT+01:00 Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>>: > On 01/04/2016 07:32 AM, Amaury SECHET wrote: >> After a bit more investigation, it turns out that because %0 is stored into %1 (after

I used LLVM already existent passes with no problems till I tried to use MemDepPrinter.cpp : http://llvm.org/doxygen/MemDepPrinter_8cpp_source.html. I got the following segfault: llvm[0]: Compiling MyMemDepPrinter.cpp for Release+Asserts build (PIC) llvm[0]: Linking Release+Asserts Loadable Module MyMemDepPrinter.so WARNING: You're attempting to print out a bitcode file. This

Explicitly re-adding a node to be processed doesn't work, because the processing order is canonical. 2017-05-22 11:39 GMT-07:00 Nirav Davé <niravd at google.com>: > You can always explicitly add D to the worklist when you make the > transformation with AddToWorklist. Presuambly this was the cause for your > infinite loop. > > -Nirav > > > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at

I don't think that'd work, because it leaves all other backends broken. AFAICT, your transform is simply not a legal transform, with the way the ADDC/ADDE opcodes are currently defined, and to do it you really need to fix the opcode definitions to not involve glue, first. I also note that your transform doesn't actually trigger at all on this particular test case on x86, because the

I'd think i1 would be the proper and correct choice for a carry flag for the generic instruction. I expect that would also make UADDO/USUBO redundant with ADDC/SUBC (which would seem a good outcome). You'd need to make sure the right thing happened when converting from ADDC's 1-bit carry in/out to X86ISD::AD[DC]'s EFLAGS i/o. Right now the conversion can get away with assuming

----- 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,

Would it not make sense to refactor the code so those don't use glue rather than emitting them with glue and then getting rid of it. There are times when we would like to emit these in separate blocks but can't (presumably because of the glue). On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:15 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > That's seems really odd that

Long story short: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31890 The backend fails to schedule a given DAG, the reason being that there is an instruction and it glue that needs to be broken apart as they can't be scheduled consecutively. See attached file for a picture of the DAG. Not sure what's the best course of action is, and not sure why this isn't a problem for the X86 backend

Hi, I'm working with workload where the bottleneck is cryptographic signature checks. Or, in compiler terms, most large integer operations. Looking at rL296252 , the state of affair in that area degraded quite significantly, see test/CodeGen/X86/i256-add.ll for instance. Is there some kind of work in progress here and it is expected to get better ? Because if not, that's a big problem.

The root problem is that, when A gets modified, D doesn't get added back to the worklist. I could match the pattern on A, but the problem remains: when D gets modified, A do not get added back tot he worklist. I also considered ding several round of DAGCombine, but it is very easy to run into infinite loops, even with a fair amount of sanity checks. 2017-05-22 7:30 GMT-07:00 Nirav Davé

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 at 09:38 Amaury SECHET <deadalnix at gmail.com> wrote: > I'd be happy to do it, but this is a bit much high level for me to be > actionable. Can you explain me what I should do to reintroduce them int he > debian packaging ? > On the CMake side, I'm not sure. I think it's just a matter of using the "install()" functions to install them

----- 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: "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 >

Philip Reames wrote: > T.M.K., there's no direct way to test it. There is. See the 'unittests/' directory which contains the C++ unit tests. See unittests/IR/UserTest.cpp for an example that builds up IR from a .ll-in-a-C-string then queries C++ API operations on it. Nick You have to construct a > transformation which happens with the information you added and not >

On Sun, 1 May 2016 at 16:12 Amaury SECHET <deadalnix at gmail.com> wrote: > Some update on this. > > 2016-04-12 18:48 GMT-07:00 Andrew Wilkins <axwalk at gmail.com>: > >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 at 09:38 Amaury SECHET <deadalnix at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I'd be happy to do it, but this is a bit much high level for me to be >>>

On Mar 31, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Owen Anderson wrote: > Some analyses, like Andersen's AA, do all their computation in their > runOnFunction(). Therefore, anything they depended on can be > destroyed after the runOnFunction() returns. What about AA itself? Would addRequired<AliasAnalysis> keep AliasAnalysis alive (but allow AliasAnalysis's dependencies to die)? >

i am sorry, i get this error: opt: /home/llvm/src/include/llvm/Support/CallSite.h:87: ValTy* llvm::CallSiteBase<FunTy, ValTy, UserTy, InstrTy, CallTy, InvokeTy, IterTy>::getCalledValue() const [with FunTy = const llvm::Function, ValTy = const llvm::Value, UserTy = const llvm::User, InstrTy = const llvm::Instruction, CallTy = const llvm::CallInst, InvokeTy = const llvm::InvokeInst, IterTy =

On Fri Apr 02 00:37:03 +0200 2010, Trevor Harmon wrote: > On Mar 31, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Owen Anderson wrote: > > Others, like MemoryDependenceAnalysis, are "lazy." MDA > > specifically does NOT compute results in its runOnFunction(), > > instead computing results on-demand when a user queries it. Because > > MDA depends on AA, we must ensure that, as long as