similar to: What is ConstantExpr?

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 4:34 PM Olivier Sallenave <ol.sall at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Thanks for your feedback. I would prefer not to write a new AA. Can't we > directly implement that traversal in BasicAA? > Can I ask why? Outside of the "well, it's another pass", i mean? BasicAA is stateless, so you can't cache, and you really don't

Hi all, opt and opt + llc generate the difference aarch64 asm code for the following LLVM code. Is it intended behavior? I expected (A) because I cast %p from i192* to i64*. The information is dropped by opt and 8-byte padding is inserted or I write a bad code? % cat a.ll define void @store0_to_p4(i192* %p) { %p1 = bitcast i192* %p to i64* %p2 = getelementptr i64, i64* %p1, i64 3 %p3 =

Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote on 16.03.2015 17:56:20: > If you want to do it at a clang level, the right thing to do is to > fixup the ABI lowerings for pointers to keep them pointers in this case. > So this is an artifact of the way that we pass structures, and > constructing a general solution at the ABI level might be tricky. > I've cc'd Uli, who did most

I found a something that I quite not understand when compiling a common piece of code using the -Os flags. I found it while testing my own backend but then I got deeper and found that at least the x86 is affected as well. This is the referred code: char pp[3]; char *scscx = pp; int tst( char i, char j, char k ) { scscx[0] = i; scscx[1] = j; scscx[2] = k; return 0; } The above gets

The test case that you added in this revision fails on several of the power buildbots (for example, http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64-elf-linux2/builds/20127) and also when I build it locally: FAIL: Clang :: CodeGenCXX/main-norecurse.cpp (2951 of 27722) ******************** TEST 'Clang :: CodeGenCXX/main-norecurse.cpp' FAILED ******************** Script: --

Hello all, There is a missing vectorization opportunity issue with clang 4.0 with the file attached. Indeed, when compiled with -O2, the "op_distance" function get vectorized, but not the "op" one. For information, this test case has been reduced from a file generated by the Pythran compiler (https://github.com/serge-sans-paille/pythran). If we take a look at the generated

----- 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,

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 2:20 AM, David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Vadim Chugunov <vadimcn at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi! >> LLVM has a class, ConstantExpr, that is very handy for compile-time >> evaluation of const expressions. Unfortunately I cannot find any methods >> in it that would be

On 07/24/2015 03:42 AM, Benjamin Kramer wrote: >> On 24.07.2015, at 08:06, zhi chen <zchenhn at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It seems that that it's hard to vectorize int64 in LLVM. For example, LLVM 3.4 generates very complicated code for the following IR. I am running on a Haswell processor. Is it because there is no alternative AVX/2 instructions for int64? The same thing

> On 2015-Nov-05, at 08:31, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:26 AM, James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk> wrote: >> Ah I see. >> >> I can't think of a way that would help users in any particular way offhand. >> I hadn't considered exposing it to clang users - do you think there is merit

When I compile this LLVM IR…. @0 = private constant [19 x i8] c"V4main10Brightness\00", section "__TEXT,__swift3_typeref, regular, no_dead_strip" @1 = private constant [9 x i8] c"Vs5UInt8\00", section "__TEXT,__swift3_typeref, regular, no_dead_strip" @2 = private constant [18 x i8] c"currentBrightness\00", section "__TEXT,__swift3_reflstr,

Yes, the full test case is: static int x = 100; int y = whatever; int main() { x = -101; y = whatever that's not whatever above; printf("%d\n", y); printf("%d\n", x); return 0; } You are correct, in the above test case the globalopt does not make the transformation.... however, I think the original issue still stands, it really shouldn't be doing it

Hi Duncan, Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I will reword my questions. //C code int var1; //global int a, b; foo(a, b); bar(c); generates following //LLVM IR %1 = load a; %2 = load b; call foo(%1, %2) call bar(@var1) CallInst.getOperand(1).getNameStr() on foo, returns null, but on bar returns var1. Similarly, for call void @p_ptr(i64 ptrtoint (%struct.my_struct* @abc to i64)) nounwind,

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Devang Patel <dpatel at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 6, 2010, at 7:35 PM, Talin wrote: > > After to speaking to Devang and a number of other people at the developer's > conference, I was able to make some forward progress on getting debugging to > work. I'm now able to actually single-step through my program and set > breakpoints,

----- 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 >

------------------------------------ IR ------------------------------------------------------------------ if.then.i.i.i.i.i.i: ; preds = %if.then4 %S25_D = zext <2 x i32> %splatLDS17_D.splat to <2 x i64> %umul_with_overflow.i.iS26_D = shl <2 x i64> %S25_D, <i64 3, i64 3> %extumul_with_overflow.i.iS26_D = extractelement <2 x i64>

To the right list this time. On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:43 PM Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Coming back to his now. > > > IFCC, the previous attempt to teach LLVM to emit jump tables, was removed > for complicating how functions are emitted, in particular requiring a > subtarget-specific instruction emitter available in

This snippet of IR is interesting: %sub.ptr.div.iS37_D = sdiv <2 x i64> %sub.ptr.sub.iS36_D, <i64 24, i64 24> %cmp10S38_D = icmp ugt <2 x i64> %sub.ptr.div.iS37_D, %splatInsMapS1_D.splat %zextS39_D = sext <2 x i1> %cmp10S38_D to <2 x i64> %BCS39_D = bitcast <2 x i64> %zextS39_D to i128 %mskS39_D = icmp ne i128 %BCS39_D, 0 br i1 %mskS39_D,

> I agree that this accurately summarizes both (1) what’s expressible in > current object file formats and (2) what we’re likely to want to need from > global aliases. > >> The tool we have in llvm for creating these extra labels is the GlobalAlias. >> >> One way of representing the above uses is to be explicit: a label is >> created with a specific value or at