similar to: Store unswitch

Thanks, Looks like inst combine do the job On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Hongbin Zheng via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Is there a pass in LLVM that can optimize: > > > > if (x) > > a[i] = y0; > > else > >

Hi, Yes, I can see why that would not work. The sinking algorithm in SimplifyCFG isn't particularly clever. In particular it can't reason about memory ordering and aliasing. In unswitch1(), it can identify that the stores correlate because the correlating stores appear in the same relative source order. In unswitch2() they have been permuted, and the algorithm cannot deal with this. This

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 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

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Daniel, >> >> I mean "*As a set*, B + C dominate D". >> >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> >> wrote:

Hi Daniel, Thanks a lot for all these explanation, I will try it out. Hongbin On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> >> wrote:

Hi Daniel, I mean "*As a set*, B + C dominate D". On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > When you say collectively, you mean "would dominate it if considered a > single block together? > > IE > > A > / \ > B C > \ / > D > > As a set, B + C dominate D. > > The set you are

Hi, Is there any way to quickly test if a set of basic block collectively dominate another basic block? Thanks Hongbin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170425/b9336a6d/attachment.html>

Like I said, i'm nearly positive there is a much faster way, as the sets are mostly shared except in the cyclic case, and in all reducible cyclic cases, removal of back-arcs does not affect dominance (because in any reducible flowgraph, v dominates u whenever u,v is a back-arc) On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > >

Hi Mats, When the struct is packed, explicit byte array is introduced to pad the struct. (I saw this happened in clang 3.9.) I want to check if a byte or byte array in an LLVM struct is introduce for explicit padding or not. I don't need to worry about this problem in case the newest clang do not introduce byte array anymore. Thanks Hongbin On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 1:03 AM, mats petersson

the packed + aligned attribute will automatically introduce explicit padding byte array: https://godbolt.org/g/TlHX2g Sometimes Clang will decide to automatically pack the struct/class in C++, I don't know the details here, but looks like it is related to inheritance. Thanks Hongbin On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 1:32 AM, mats petersson <mats at planetcatfish.com> wrote: > How do you

Hongbin, Did you tweak sys.path? # Extend paths to allow loading zorg and config modules. import os, sys path = os.path.join(os.environ.get('HOME'), 'zorg', 'buildbot', 'osuosl', 'master') if path not in sys.path: sys.path.append(path) path = os.path.join(os.environ.get('HOME'), 'zorg') if path not in sys.path: sys.path.append(path)

Hi, I had cloned zorg from https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/zorg/trunk, then I try to start the buildbot master located in buildbot/osuosl/master (the absolute path is /nfs/home/hongbin.zheng/buildbot/zorg/buildbot/osuosl/master) by simply typing "buildbot start" And I get something like this from my twistd.log: --- <exception caught here> --- File

> > I also have a look at the code, looks like it directly parse the bitcode > and build in memory representation in a different LLVM version than the > bitcode. Is this correct? According to your description, I guess the BitCodeWriter should be the one > to do the bitcode version downgrade, right? I think so. I don't know much about it and don't want to give you

Dear all, I would like to draw a dendrogram and mark some parts/branches (by using "segments") including their labels. If I draw it without specifying the length of x axix, I am able to do that (as in My dendrogram 1 of the following codes). However, if I want to specify the x axix, I am not able to draw marking line (by using "segments") including labels (as in My dendrogram

Hi Steve, Several people told me that LLVM TOT bcreader can read odder version of bitcode without any problem. Do you know the oldest version of bitcode that the TOT bitcode reader supports? Also, why do you generate bitcode instead of the textural representation, i.e. the "ll" file, for older version of LLVM? I guess generating "ll" code is simpler. Another approach I am

Using the PPC frsqrte and fres instructions, I got the percentage time take in the smoothing code in _vp_compute_mask() down from 13.64% to 1.88% of the running time. In my local copy of Vorbis I have a fast_math.[hc] in vorbis/lib and have a _fast_sqrt() inline in fast_math.h. If anyone else wants to try it out, it follows. I can currently encode my test file (the first 15 seconds of

I don't see any problem mangling it to be honest even though there seems to be only one prototype anyways. We could add restrict in as well. Cheers, Anastasia ________________________________ From: Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com> Sent: 17 September 2016 05:32:54 To: Liu, Yaxun (Sam) Cc: cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org; llvm-dev; Bader, Alexey (alexey.bader at intel.com); Anastasia

> On Aug 2, 2016, at 8:38 PM, Stephen Hines via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Hongbin, > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com <mailto:etherzhhb at gmail.com>> wrote: > Hi Steve, > > Several people told me that LLVM TOT bcreader can read odder version of bitcode without any problem. Do you know the

Thanks Steve and Mehdi for the explanation. Steve, I am a little be confused by looking at the code in https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/compile/libbcc/+/master/bcinfo/BitReader_3_0/BitcodeReader.cpp. Looks like the BitcodeReader do some translation while reading the bitcode. If LLVM ToT can read the bitcode of LLVM 3.0, while can't we just use the bitcode reader in LLVM