similar to: Reordering of load/stores using MemorySSA

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 4:44 AM Juneyoung Lee <juneyoung.lee at sf.snu.ac.kr> wrote: > > Hello Daniel, > > Thank you for the reply. > My impression was that embedding such information into MemorySSA > would be helpful for shorter compilation time > as well as people who needs this kind of information for writing optimizations, > but building time of MemorySSA also

When we erase a memory access instruction, existing passes using memory ssa like GVN, NewGVN, GVNHoist and EarlyCSE uses MemorySSAUpdater to do the update before the instruction is erased. However, if we call llvm::RecursivelyDeleteTriviallyDeadInstructions to find out dead instruction recursively and memory access instructions may be erased inside the recursive process, we need a way to update

Can you share you compile-time and memory footprint measurements at least for CTMark? For a new pass/feature it would be great to share this with the community before you commit. Or did I miss them? Thanks Gerolf > On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:26 PM, Geoff Berry via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > EarlyCSE w/ MemorySSA has been enabled by default as of r306477 >

Hi All, I'd like to switch the function simplification run of EarlyCSE to use MemorySSA by default. This change has been in tree for a while and I've done benchmark and self-hosting testing on both aarch64 and x86, but I wanted to give other folks with different tests/targets a chance to try this out before I flip the switch. I've added an option

Hi, On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Wei Mi <wmi at google.com> wrote: >> >> It seems MemorySSA.cpp is the only real code where we found the >> problem happening. > > > This is doubtful, ¸FWIW :) > >> >> Is it possible to change the

It seems MemorySSA.cpp is the only real code where we found the problem happening. Is it possible to change the source of MemorySSA.cpp to hide the problem and buy some time for now? Now we use an empty generic_def_path_iterator with Optional<ListIndex> N being initialized by None as the end of range. Can we initialize the Optional var with a special value instead of None?

+1 If possible, it definitely helps to fuzz it. On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Geoff Berry via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I'd like to switch the function simplification run of EarlyCSE to use > > MemorySSA by

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Wei Mi <wmi at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Sanjoy Das > <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Wei Mi

Hello, some of the patches had conflicts with LLVM head, so I updated them. If you experienced patch failure before then you can try it again. I compiled your code (1.c) with LLVM r308173 with the 5 patches applied, and it generated assembly like this. Now it contains store to c(%rip). It tries to store a(%rip) + b(%rip) to c(%rip). I wish this translation is now correct. ``` 73 .globl hoo

On 07/18/2017 06:03 PM, David Majnemer via llvm-dev wrote: > I doubt it is possible for us to try and make any fix which is > predicated on eagerly treating undef in a particular way, refinement > will always cause these problems to come about... > > Given what I've seen in LLVM (and what I've learned from other > compilers), we probably have two choices: > 1.

Cool, thanks for debugging this issue and letting us know. We have a few patches to fix this issue: - Introduce freeze in IR: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29011 - Lowering freeze: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29014 - Fix loop unswitch: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29015 Bonus patches to recover perf: - Be less conservative in loop unswitching: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29016 - Instcombine support

Hi, try adding some alias analysis to the pipeline: see examples in llvm/test/Analysis/MemorySSA/*.ll for example assume.ll has ; RUN: opt -aa-pipeline=basic-aa -passes='print<memoryssa>,verify<memoryssa>' without basic-aa the memory ssa will safely assume that the stores to %a and %d alias which may be proven disjoint by one of the alias analyses. On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:37

The issue blocks another optimization patch and Wei has spent huge amount of effort isolating the the bootstrap failure to this same problem. I agree with Wei that other developers may also get hit by the same issue and the cost of leaving this issue open for long can be very high to the community. David On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Wei Mi <wmi at google.com> wrote: > Sanjoy and

On 12/20/2017 1:37 PM, Sanjoy Das wrote:> > Fwiw, I was under the impression that regular loads could *not* be > reordered with volatile loads since we could have e.g.: > > int *normal = &global_variable; > volatile int* ptr = 0; > int k = *ptr; // segfaults, and the signal handler writes to *normal > int value = *normal; > > and that we'd have

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> > wrote: > > The issue blocks another optimization patch and Wei has spent huge > amount of > > effort isolating the the bootstrap failure to this same problem. I agree > >

This is a bug found by internal compiler bootstrap, and possibly it is the root cause of https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33652 and https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33626. Here is the testcase 1.c. The original code is at MemorySSA.cpp:586 for rL307764. ------------------------- 1.c --------------------------- long a, c, d, e, f, m, cnt, i_hasval; volatile long b; void goo(long); void

Hello there, I am using nlme() to fit a logistic mixed effect model on our data. The outcome variable is binary. I got the error when I wanted to add a group factor to my model. My initial model is as below: model.a <- nlme(response~ 1/(1 + exp( -intercept- u0 - slope*TIME - u1*TIME)), + fixed=intercept+slope~1, random= u0+u1~1 |studentID,

I'm currently using rsync to backup home directories using this: rsync -avx --delete --backup --backup-dir=/u1/home.bak /u0/home/ /u1/home >> ${log} I'm trying to move to snapshot backups using this: rsync -avx --delete --backup --backup-dir=/u1/home.bak --link-dest=../home.current /u0/home/ /u1/home_${datetime} >> ${log} This works except I no longer get deleted source

Hi All, I'm looking into converting LICM to use MemorySSA instead of AliasSets to determine when it is safe to hoist/sink/promote loads and stores to get around the issue of alias set collapse (see discussion [1]). I have a prototype implementation, but have run into two issues that I could use input from the designers of MemorySSA to resolve: 1) Is MemorySSA intended to be

Hello, I'm having an odd problem that I can't find a resolution to. I have a Freebsd 6.2 server with recently upgrade samba software (from 3.0.26a) and an WinXP client. There's a single file: 1015280 -rw-r--r-- 1 userid staff 991M Jan 7 09:13 fbsdusb.img shared from \\server\tmp, that appears twice when browsed from WinXP. If I rename it (i.e. fbsdUSB.img or fbsdusb.iso) or