similar to: Speculative execution of FP divide Instructions - Call-Graph Simplify

[+current llvm-dev address] On 03/15/2017 09:23 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: > Hi Samuel, > > What are you taking about? ;) > > The only way to get a SIGFPE from a floating-point division by zero is > to modify the floating-point environment to enable those exceptions. > We don't support that (*). In the default (supported) environment, > floating point division is well

It’s true, I am working on this. I have committed the initial patch to add constrained intrinsics for the basic FP operations. This has the desired effect of preventing optimizations that would violate strict FP semantics with regard to rounding mode and exception status, but it also prevents many safe optimizations. Later this year I’ll be going through the code base and trying to teach

Dear R Users, I have a basis question regarding the use of color in the lattice package. I read the ?barchart help page and searched the R archives but could not understand how to do it. I just need to plot a barchart using specific colors for my groups, e.g. green and red instead of the default lattice colors. How do I do that? If I say: barchart(x ~ a_factor, groups=my_groups,

Hi Sanjay, Thanks, I saw this flag and it's definitely should be considered, but it appeared to me to be static characteristic of target platform. I'm not sure how appropriate it would be to change its value from a front-end. It says "Has", while optional flag would rather say "Uses" meaning that implementation cares about floating point exceptions. Regards, Sergey

On the subject of undefined behavior and known bits, as I'm sure some of you are aware, code in ValueTracking.cpp is exploiting poison value rules to get a bit of extra precision in the known bits. These rules fire on examples like the ones below. Do we have a set of rules that clients of known bits need to follow to avoid unsoundness? I remember Nuno and/or David Majnemer saying

Given a pointer, does any addrspacecast affect the pointer's dereferenceablity ? For example, %pm = addrspaacecast float addrspacecast(n)* %pn to float addrspacecast(m)* %r = load float addrspace(m)* %pm In another word. the question is whether the following is true ? isDereferenceablePointer(pn) == isDereferenceablePointer(pm) [Note that the function is defined as

Chandler Carruth wrote: > This seems fine to me, but I'd like to make sure it looks OK to Nick as > well. I strongly prefer baking in knowledge about the intrinsics themselves into the passes if possible. Metadata will always be secondary. Separately, should value tracking look use range metadata when it's available? Absolutely. I think it should apply to all CallInst not just

Hi, The range metadata can only be attached to LoadInst for now. I am considering extending its usage to IntrinsicInst so that the frontend can annotate the range of the return value of an intrinsic call. e.g., %a = call i32 @llvm.xxx(), !range !0 !0 = metadata !{ i32 0, i23 1024 } The motivation behind this extension is some optimizations we are working on for CUDA programs. Some special

On 17 June 2014 06:41, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > >> Chandler Carruth wrote: >> >>> This seems fine to me, but I'd like to make sure it looks OK to Nick as >>> well. >>> >> >> I strongly prefer baking in knowledge about the

Some optimizations depend on whether alloca instruction always has non-zero value. Currently, this checking is done by isKnownNonZero() in ValueTracking, and it assumes alloca in address space 0 always has non-zero value but alloca in non-zero address spaces does not always have non-zero value. However, this assumption is incorrect for certain targets. For example, amdgcn---amdgiz target has

Hello, As I can see, recently LLVM switched to using assume bundles to encode alignment information: https://reviews.llvm.org/rG78de7297abe2e8fa782682168989c70e3cb34a5c However, it seems that the ValueTracking cannot understand the new format. As an example, consider compilation of the following reproducer with clang-11 (old assume format) and clang-trunk (assume bundles): #include

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > In the IR, besides "target datalayout" and "target triple", we have a > special "target cpu" string which is set by the Clang front-end according to > its -target-cpu flag. We also write a Module::getTargetCPU() method to > retrieve this string from the

Eh? How do you envision this? -eric On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com> wrote: > Hi Nick, > > That makes sense. I think a main issue here is that the ranges of these PTX > special registers (e.g., threadIdx.x) depend on -target-cpu which is only > visible to clang and llc. Would you mind we specify "target cpu" in the IR > similar

Hal, Thanks for your suggestion. I think that makes sense. Currently, non-zero alloca address space is already represented by data layout, e.g., the last component of the data layout of amdgcn---amdgiz target is -A5, which means alloca is in address space 5. How about adding a letter z to -A5 to indicate alloca may have zero value? i.e. -A5 means alloca is in address space 5 and always has

Is there any particular reason that CaptureTracking.h isn't folded into ValueTracking.h? I was looking for the method to check whether a pointer would be captured and looked in ValueTracking.h, unaware that a new header had been created for that one method. Would anyone mind if I folded CaptureTracking into ValueTracking? Nick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

Eric Christopher wrote: > How are you trying to call it? Do you have a DataLayout? In test/Analysis/ValueTracking/memory-dereferenceable.ll, just change byval to dereferenceable(8), and %dparam won't match (see lib/IR/Value.cpp:521 for the logic that is supposed to fire). How do I get it to pass? I tried introducing a target-triple and target-datalayout, but it didn't help.

On Jan 19, 2009, at 7:44 AM, Jay Foad wrote: > LLVM doesn't build out of the box on Cygwin, because Cygwin defines > uint32_t as "unsigned long" rather than "unsigned int". > > The attached patch allows me to build head of svn (rev 62510) on > Cygwin using GCC 4. Can this be committed please? Thanks applied:

LLVM doesn't build out of the box on Cygwin, because Cygwin defines uint32_t as "unsigned long" rather than "unsigned int". The attached patch allows me to build head of svn (rev 62510) on Cygwin using GCC 4. Can this be committed please? I realise that the DataTypes.h.in part might be controversial. Also, there's probably a better place to put it, but I'm not

Hi again, It's partially done. My concern is that it won't be accepted as is because of adding the flag parameter in a lot of places. I'd like to show what it looks like (here, not on llvm-commit yet), maybe someone could suggest a better way. There are two sources of the flag: field of TargetOptions and function attribute. I had to add the later one for InstCombine pass. Still

Hello, This simple patch fixes PR9112: Index: lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp =================================================================== --- lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp (revision 125281) +++ lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp (working copy) @@ -593,6 +593,8 @@ // Otherwise take the unions of the known bit sets of the operands, // taking conservative care to avoid