similar to: Problem with "[SimplifyCFG] Handle tail-sinking of more than 2 incoming branches"

Probably the issue is solvable in some Codegen prepare pass. That said I still believe some kind of control on if we would like to implement this or not could be useful. Just a question. Why implementing it in SimplifyCFG and not as a separate pass like JumpThreading or something like that? The transformation itself doesn’t seem to fit much in SimplifyCFG. > On 2 Sep 2016, at 13:35, Michael

It’s not about weird restrictions we are adding, it’s about the fact that for that specific address space we cannot dynamically index into the memory. The address needs to be a constant of some sort in the selection (it’s an hardware limitation, there’s nothing we can do about it) and the fact that it is transformed into a PHI makes it not constant anymore. We will need to undo this into Codegen

Hi Chad, On Aug 6, 2013, at 7:46 AM, Chad Rosier <chad.rosier at gmail.com> wrote: > All, > I have some code that looks like the following: > > { > double a, b, c; > for (...) { > ... > a = lots of FP math; > b = lots of FP math; > c = lots of FP math; > if (cond) { > a = 0.0; > b = 0.1; > c = 0.2; >

Thanks, Mark. I will give the paper a look. On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Mark Lacey <mark.lacey at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Chad, > > On Aug 6, 2013, at 7:46 AM, Chad Rosier <chad.rosier at gmail.com> wrote: > > > All, > > I have some code that looks like the following: > > > > { > > double a, b, c; > > for (...) { > >

On Nov 21, 2013, at 10:37 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 21, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Nov 20, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Evan Cheng" <evan.cheng at apple.com>

Hi Danny, Thanks for that :) However I've just updated the prototype patch to NewGVN and it didn't need any API changes - all I rely on is GVNExpression. Hongbin, I wanted to explain a little about what GVNSink can currently do, what it was designed for and hopefully how to make it handle your testcase. *Background* Common code sinking is more difficult to efficently do than one might

All, I have some code that looks like the following: { double a, b, c; for (...) { ... a = lots of FP math; b = lots of FP math; c = lots of FP math; if (cond) { a = 0.0; b = 0.1; c = 0.2; } ... } } Could we not convert the hammock into a diamond and move the initial computation of a, b, and c into the else block. Something like this: {

On Nov 21, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 20, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Evan Cheng" <evan.cheng at apple.com> >>> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >>> Cc: "LLVM" <llvmdev at

It's basically ready to commit; the reviewers were fairly happy with it. It needs rebasing on top of NewGVN and any bugs that shakes out fixed, but that's about it. I want to get around to it soon-ish, but I've wanted that for a while! On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 at 16:50, Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi James, > > I have an ad-hoc solution in mind to solve

Hi All, I found some cases where a spill of a live range in a block is reloaded only in one of its successors, and there is no reload in other paths through other successors. Since the spill is reloaded only in a certain path, it must be okay to sink such spill close to its reloads. In the AArch64 code below, there is a spill(x2) in the entry, but this value is reloaded only in %bb.1, not in

On 17 October 2012 16:41, Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hello All, > > The current implementation of the CFG simplification is loop-agnostic. In > the past I have observed that it can perform transformations that can be > detrimental to the loop structure. One example that I recall, is converting > a loop like this: > while (...) { >

On 10/17/2012 2:11 PM, James Courtier-Dutton wrote: > > I thing to keep in mind is this is CFG, and can be unstructured, or > after various transformations, not representable in higher level > language structures such as while loops. Having a specific loop structure with specific requirements, such as single back edge can make loop optimizations (and loop nest optimizations in

From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Jun Lim via llvm-dev Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 11:05 AM Hi All, I found some cases where a spill of a live range in a block is reloaded only in one of its successors, and there is no reload in other paths through other successors. Since the spill is reloaded only in a certain path, it must be okay to sink such

I was trying the new feature you introduce about printing out the graphs, so I updated my version of llvm/clang/polly synchronizing them to the last version, but I get this error launching clang (also , I recently switched to MacOS X for development): $ clang not_so_simple_loop.c -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang ${PATH_TO_POLLY_LIB}/LLVMPolly.dylib -mllvm -enable-polly-viewer -mllvm -enable-iv-rewrite

On 2018-02-22 11:14, gberry at codeaurora.org wrote: > FROM: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] ON BEHALF OF > Jun Lim via llvm-dev > SENT: Thursday, February 22, 2018 11:05 AM > > Hi All, > > I found some cases where a spill of a live range in a block is > reloaded only in one of its successors, and there is no reload in > other paths through other

Hi Tobias, thanks for the answer. I'll try to give a look to the code you pointed me to , and I'll try to make the modification myself. I'm new to LLVM and Polly, but the code of both seem clean and understandable, so I hope to be able to do it myself. In case I'll ask here for support :) Marcello 2011/10/1 Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es>: > On 10/01/2011 03:26

Hello All, The current implementation of the CFG simplification is loop-agnostic. In the past I have observed that it can perform transformations that can be detrimental to the loop structure. One example that I recall, is converting a loop like this: while (...) { ... if (cond) continue; ... } into two nested loops. Specifically, the "continue" branch

> From: junbuml at codeaurora.org [mailto:junbuml at codeaurora.org] > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 11:39 AM > > On 2018-02-22 11:14, gberry at codeaurora.org wrote: > > FROM: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] ON BEHALF OF > > Jun Lim via llvm-dev > > SENT: Thursday, February 22, 2018 11:05 AM > > > > Hi All, > > > > I

On Nov 20, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Evan Cheng" <evan.cheng at apple.com> >> To: "Junbum Lim" <junbums at gmail.com> >> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:01:49 PM >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] sinking address computing in

Hello, I am trying to replicate the output from opt -O3 foo.bc -o foo.opt.bc by specifying the individual passes instead of the -O3 flag. Looking at the passes from opt -O3 foo.bc -o foo.bc -debug-pass=Executions it seems there are two passes being run. When I run the flags indicated for the two passes specified in the 'Pass Arguments:' as two sequential opt processes or a single opt