similar to: RFC: Adding a string table to the bitcode format

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 3, 2017, at 7:08 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > Hi, > > As part of PR27551 I want to add a string table to the bitcode format to > allow global value and comdat names to be shared with the proposed symbol > table (and, as side effects, allow comdat

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 3, 2017, at 7:08 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > Hi, > > As part of PR27551 I want to add a string table to the bitcode format to > allow global value and comdat names to be shared with the proposed symbol > table (and, as side effects, allow comdat

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 4, 2017, at 12:12 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Apr 3, 2017, at 7:08 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: >> >> Hi,

Hi all, I updated the patches to remove the native object wrapper format. As suggested we will work on getting the ThinLTO framework in place using bitcode first, and then work on adding the native object support. As noted in this RFC and in the associated patch D11722, for now I have empty ThinLTO blocks with no records, since I wanted to get feedback on the overall block design first. The RFC

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > On 2017-Apr-04, at 12:12, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Apr 3, 2017, at 7:08 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: >>

I wrote in a few weeks ago about writing an independent implementation of Bitcode and updating the docs to be more complete. Attached is a patch to docs/BitCodeFormat.html that adds a lot of information that was previously only available by reading the source code. It also corrects some errors. Josh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello. I've managed to create a bitcode file (attached; also available at [1]) which produces a series of identical errors when verified: | Global variable initializer type does not match global variable type! | %i.NilClass* @nil When ran through llvm-dis and recompiled, through, it verifies successfully. If I disassemble it one more time, the result is identical to the first

Peter Zotov писал 09.01.2013 19:59: > Hello. > > I've managed to create a bitcode file (attached; also available at > [1]) which produces > a series of identical errors when verified: > > | Global variable initializer type does not match global variable > type! > | %i.NilClass* @nil > > When ran through llvm-dis and recompiled, through, it verifies >

As discussed in the high-level ThinLTO RFC ( http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-May/086211.html), we would like to add support for native object wrapped bitcode and ThinLTO information. Based on comments on the mailing list, I am adding support for ThinLTO in both normal bitcode files, as well as native-object wrapped bitcode. The following RFC describes the planned file format of

All, If we can speculatively execute a load instruction, why isn’t it safe to hoist it out by promoting it to a scalar in LICM pass? There is a comment in LICM pass that if a load/store is conditional then it is not safe because it would break the LLVM concurrency model (See commit 73bfa4a). It has an IR test for checking this in test/Transforms/LICM/scalar-promote-memmodel.ll However, I have

I think gcc is right. It inserted a branch for n == 0 (the cbz at the top), so that's not a problem. In all other regards, this is safe: if you examine the sequence of loads and stores, it eliminated all but the first load and all but the last store. How's that unsafe? If I had to guess, the bug here is that LLVM doesn't want to hoist the load over the condition (which it is right

Thanks for the background on the concurrent memory model. So, is it sufficient that the loop entry is guarded by condition (cbz at top) for preventing the race? The loop entry will be guarded by condition if loop has been rotated by loop rotate pass. Since LICM runs after loop rotate, we can use ScalarEvolution::isLoopEntryGuardedByCond to check if we can speculatively execute load without

Hi, Nick, thanks for the reply. I still have a problem: I only need to "clone" an Instruction, changing its type. That is, I would like to keep all characteristics of the old Instruction and create a new one only with a different type. I am trying create a new Instruction thus: %3 = add nsw i32 %1, %2 ; <i16> [#uses=2] //Old Instruction Value* Op0 = I->getOperand(0); Value*

Hi, >> DAGCombiner::visitBRCOND() has code: >> >> SDValue N1 = N->getOperand(1); >> SDValue N2 = N->getOperand(2); >> >> ... >> >> SDNode *Trunc = 0; >> if (N1.getOpcode() == ISD::TRUNCATE&& N1.hasOneUse()) { >> // Look past truncate. >> Trunc = N1.getNode(); >> N1 = N1.getOperand(0);

Hi, Is it possible to make up a ConstantArray containing a "const char*" string and pass it directly to the function "char*" argument *without* creating a GlobalVaribable? I looked around and found the usual implementation is array->globalVar->gep. If we omit globalVar & gep, then the argument type would be [ i8 x N ], where N is set to the exact string length, and

Bill Wendling wrote: > On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: > >> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote: >> >>> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers. >>> >>> I've defined comparison >>> >>> def NErrb : InstTCE<(outs I1Regs:$op3), (ins I32Regs:$op1,I32Regs:$op2), "", [(set

Dear All, The InstCombine pass performs the following transformation. Z / (X / Y) => (Y * Z) / X This is performed only when operand Op1 ( (X/Y) in this case) has only one use in future. The code snippet is shown below. if (match(Op1, m_OneUse(m_FDiv(m_Value(X), m_Value(Y)))) && (!isa<Constant>(Y) || !isa<Constant>(Op0))) { // Z / (X / Y) => (Y *

On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: > On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote: > >> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers. >> >> I've defined comparison >> >> def NErrb : InstTCE<(outs I1Regs:$op3), (ins I32Regs:$op1,I32Regs:$op2), "", [(set I1Regs:$op3, (setne I32Regs:$op1, I32Regs:$op2))]>;

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > On 01/24/2011 04:41 AM, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Nick, thanks for the reply. >> I still have a problem: I only need to "clone" an Instruction, changing >> its type. That is, I would like to keep all characteristics of the old >> Instruction

Hi, I am working on PR34474 and try to add a new optimization to InstCombine. Like in other parts of the visitMul function I add a Shl through the IR builder and create a new BinaryOp which I return from visitMul. If I understand correctly the new BinaryOp returned from visitMul should replace the original Instruction in the Worklist. However, I end up in an infinite loop and the Instruction