similar to: Optionally using value numbering in Simplify*

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: On 3/3/2017 11:51 AM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev wrote: So i have a testcase (see PR31792, and cond_br2.llin GVN) that current GVN can simplify because it replaces instructions as it goes. It's an example of a larger issue that pops up quite a lot I would appreciate thoughts on what to do about it it

Hello Folks, I have 5 columns for thousands of tree records that record whether that tree was alive or dead. I want to recode the columns such that the cell reads "found" when a live tree is first observed, "alive" for when a tree is found alive and is not just found, and "mort" when it was previously alive but is now dead. Given the following: > tree_live

Hi, I got a problem when I am trying to add a dummy basic block. Let say there are two blocks, A and B. A----->B I am trying to generate new BB called C which is located between A and B, but not break the edge of AB. The graph is like the following A---->B \ / \ / C There is new BB 'C' with edges AC and CB. It is kind of like what breakcriticaledge pass does.

For those not following along, startingin r301379, Simplify* in InstructionSimplify now can just take a query struct instead of 8000 optional arguments. Nothing is really new since it used the same thing under the covers. I'm slowly converting the old uses away (deletion of the old APIs is a different question). Staring at most of them, i could just directly convert them using braced list

Run this from command line: curl --user admin:hackme 'http://192.168.0.1:8000/admin/metadata?mount=/live&mode=updinfo&song=Artist_name+Title' That should set you all up, just change IP, Port and MountPoint. -- Cody Tubbs : (Certified Master Linux Administrator) : (Certified Unix Security Specialist) -- Broadway Internet On 1 Oct 2004 at 12:15, Dave St John wrote: >

Hi all, I'm interested in adding code size optimizations as a GSoC project. This is necessary when compiling for embedded devices, where LLVM should optimize for size even at the expense of speed. I'm still working on my proposal, but I'd like some advice on the technical parts and overall project plan. First, I would add a way to determine which parts of the code should be optimized

I owe you a gala dinner at your favorite restaurant. Really. A few questions: Why did you 'git pull --rebase' when the branch was up-to-date? Is this just a safety habit? I don't understand the pushing upstream. Since we use Phabricator, isn't that the job of the person who commits the patch? Does git keep all my branches up-to-date with the origin? Say I come in tomorrow and

I think I understand the concepts, but I sure would appreciate a specific example, and I appreciate the offer. To make your life harder, could you start with what I should do given that I have not created a branch for the first patch? I just have the six files staged. I have GitHub Desktop installed, if that makes any of the steps easier. Thanks again, and no rush! At 8/10/2020 10:07 AM,

Hi everybody. NewGVN was recently committed and a few minute ago I added a flag to enable the new experimental pass. For the brave soul, passing `-mllvm -enable-newgvn` should do the trick. We'll be happy to receive bug reports to analyze/fix, bonus point if they contain a synthetic/reduced testcase. Open a bug linked to https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30995 would be probably best so

Hi, we would like to propose a new Global Value Numbering pass in LLVM. The ideas/code are from Daniel Berlin (with a minor overhaul/splitting into submittable patches from me). The code has been around for a while (2012 or before), and we think it's getting ready to be committed upstream. ### Motivation To put things into context: my personal motivation for having a new GVN/PRE algorithm

Hi, I’m curious if the test-suite running cleanly with this flag? (That would be a first step before wider testing). Thanks, — Mehdi > On Dec 26, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi everybody. > NewGVN was recently committed and a few minute ago I added a flag to > enable the new experimental pass. > > For the

Hi Daniel, Got it. If that's the case, can I implement it under the guidance of your insights/prototype? I think I can spend more time on implementation. Thanks, Taewook ________________________________ From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 9:41:30 PM To: Taewook Oh Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [NewGVN] Plan for GVNPRE? Of

Yes, the bug tracks it, and there are one or two major issues. I have patches half done for them, and am more than happy to give guidance/help in getting them done (and i've done this successfully with 3 interns so far :P) On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Florian Hahn <florian.hahn at arm.com> wrote: > Hi Amara, > > On 08/01/2018 19:26, Amara Emerson via llvm-dev wrote: >

> On 6 Jan 2018, at 04:53, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Andrew Kelley via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > Greetings, > > I just found a bug in NewGVN: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35839

Hello, In some of our internal benchmarks, I observe that LLVM performs worse than GCC because LLVM fails to perform PRE when GCC can. I hope this problem goes away when NewGVN equipped with PRE, and wonder if anyone has an idea about the status of PRE on top of NewGVN. Thanks! Best, Taewook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Also: does clang bootstrap and pass the tests (and builds the test-suite correctly?). — Mehdi > On Dec 26, 2016, at 12:54 PM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > I’m curious if the test-suite running cleanly with this flag? > (That would be a first step before wider testing). > > Thanks, > > — > Mehdi >

Hi Amara, On 08/01/2018 19:26, Amara Emerson via llvm-dev wrote: > > Is there an umbrella PR or something that could help organise what > someone would have to do/take on in order for it to be enabled? > Outstanding design issues or critical blocking bugs etc. > > Amara > It seems like [META][GVN] NewGVN Integration [1] tries to keep track of bugs/tasks for NewGVN.

Hi Daniel, Thank you for your detailed reply, and thank you for working on GVNPRE. I’d more than happy to test/evaluate it with our benchmark once it is ready. Please let me know if you need any help. Thanks, Taewook From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> Date: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 6:13 PM To: Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> Cc: "llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org"

I assume that this passes all the lit/lnt test cases on the platform that the developers work on. It causes 31 lnt test case failures on PPC. I've opened a bug with the one that is easiest to reduce. Also, I'm happy to assist by providing any further PPC specific information you require regarding this. Nemanja On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 2:03 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > This is really great to see, as I’ve spent far too much of my life over > the past two years fighting with undocumented assumptions made by GVN. A > couple of quick questions about the new GVN, based on problems I’ve had > with the old one: > > Does it assume that it’s