similar to: RFC: cleanup in Transforms/Utils

On Feb 1, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Andrew Clinton wrote: > I have a (non-entry) basic block that contains only PHI nodes and an > unconditional branch (that does not branch to itself). Is it always > possible to merge this block with it's successor and produce a > semantically equivalent program? I'm trying to undo some of the loop > optimizations that LLVM has applied to my

Yes, this is odd. On my clang.bc Without: 2.2967 ( 53.8%) 0.0242 ( 26.4%) 2.3210 ( 53.2%) 2.3227 ( 53.2%) Memory SSA 2.3364 ( 53.7%) 0.0246 ( 25.7%) 2.3610 ( 53.1%) 2.3636 ( 53.1%) Memory SSA 2.3353 ( 54.0%) 0.0258 ( 27.0%) 2.3611 ( 53.4%) 2.3632 ( 53.3%) Memory SSA With two getModRefInfo calls: 3.0302 ( 58.8%) 0.0328 ( 29.9%) 3.0630 ( 58.2%) 3.0858 ( 58.2%)

I have a (non-entry) basic block that contains only PHI nodes and an unconditional branch (that does not branch to itself). Is it always possible to merge this block with it's successor and produce a semantically equivalent program? I'm trying to undo some of the loop optimizations that LLVM has applied to my program to reduce a pair of nested loops to a single loop.

On 2/10/20 2:35 PM, Alina Sbirlea wrote: > Hi, > > Here's a tentative patch of the changes for this: D74353 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74353>. I suppose that, as expected, it's invalidated less often this way. Given that it's generally stateless, does this really represent a cost savings?  -Hal > > Thank you, > Alina > > > On Mon, Feb 10,

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > FWIW: Bootstrap is probably not a good test of this, there are bugs filed > where we end up with tons of loads and stores to test against each other. > That's actually fairly rare in bootstrap, as you can see. > Let me get you some test cases. > SG, thanks! > > My guess is that we

Hi all, After a long ride, I'm planning to turn on the use of MemorySSA for loop passes (D58311 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58311>) tomorrow (8/29). Please let me know if you have issues, concerns or feedback on this. Best, Alina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, I'd like to understand if it makes sense to keep BasicAA as a not CFG-only pass, or if it can be updated to CFG-only. The change was made in D44564 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D44564>. >From what I gathered the motivation was PhiValuesAnalysis not being properly updated, and BasicAA having an instance of it. PhiValuesAnalysis now uses callback values to invalidate deleted values (

Great, thanks! Are you planning on just talking about these things with slides? Do we have other things to which we can link for people to read? -Hal Hal Finkel Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory ________________________________ From: Tarique Islam <tislam at ca.ibm.com> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:19:31 AM To:

Hi, This came up in https://reviews.llvm.org/D38569, and I'd like some input on what's the best way to get alias and mod-ref info without having two alias calls. A couple of ideas: (a) Extend the getModRefInfo interface (+getModRefBehavior, +gerArgModRefInfo) to return a pair {ModRefInfo, AliasResult}. The AliasResult can be optional based on an argument e.g.: struct MRI_AR {

Hi Hal, Yes, the "internal" caches AA would be valid as long as the IR is not mutated. Are you suggesting keeping them? It's possible, but it will be very tricky to ensure they are cleared at the right times and they will likely be prone to adding hidden bugs. I don't have strong indications currently that keeping such information would be useful by other users, other than

> On Feb 29, 2016, at 10:50 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > > > From: "Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Alina Sbirlea" <alina.sbirlea at gmail.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 7:06:51 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC:

To join our call on Thursday, May 28th @ 9-10 AM central time / 2-3 PM UTC please use this information: Meeting URL https://bluejeans.com/643493129?src=join_info Meeting ID 643 493 129 Want to dial in from a phone? Dial one of the following numbers: +1.312.216.0325 (US (Chicago)) +1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) +1.866.226.4650 (US Toll Free) (see all numbers -

Hi! In some cases the use of blockaddress() crashes llc. I've attached two test-cases, one that crashes and for reference a slightly modified one (just 2 lines are commented) that works. I compile the files with # llvm-as test_crash.ll -o - | llc -f -o temp.s - and get 0 llc 0x0000000000c6ab6f 1 llc 0x0000000000c6b38d 2 libpthread.so.0 0x00007feccd2270f0 3

Hi, everyone, A quick reminder: This call will start in approximately four hours. See below for how to join. On our current agenda: Agenda * Full restrict patch * Observation and clarification * Issues encountered * Speed up in intersection code - O(nlog(n)) * Calling Verifier after LoopVectorize pass? -Hal Hal Finkel Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Alina Sbirlea" <alina.sbirlea at gmail.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 7:06:51 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Add bitcode tests to test-suite > Sent from my iPhone > On Feb

Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 29, 2016, at 3:39 PM, Alina Sbirlea <alina.sbirlea at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:50 PM, Alina Sbirlea <alina.sbirlea at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 10/10/2017 02:49 PM, Alina Sbirlea wrote: > > Sigh >> I should have taken the time to give a better example. >> The must-alias part is irrelevant to an example (it only requires >> read-onlyness) >> >> You said "LICM doesn't move calls, so we'd never really

I really don't understand this. Why is a C++ reference useful? Instead, we have an IR reference: the unoptimized IR. I think it pretty important to not phrase everything in terms of C or C++ or Clang... =/ What if there are IR constructs that simply cannot be produced by C++? We're adding lots of those for managed languages. If there is a practical concern with having IR-based test

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 2:30 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 8:31 AM Alina Sbirlea <alina.sbirlea at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Dave, >> >> It may be possible to do this with the current API, but what I was >> looking for is a common API for existing block types. For example there is >> no

Hi, everyone, We had a great call last month, and progress is definitely being made on several fronts. The notes from our last call are available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ybwEKDVtIbhIhK50qYtwKsL50K-NvB6LfuBsfepBZ9Y/edit#heading=h.vpxs8lkuxy79 and, also, pasted below. DOODLE POLL: As we discussed on our last call, I would like to schedule a regular call to discuss