similar to: stale info in the assumption cache

Hi Hal, On 1/16/19 6:59 PM, Dmitriev, Serguei N via llvm-dev wrote: Hi all, We have recently encountered a problem with AssumptionCache that it does not get updated when a block with llvm.assume calls gets outlined by the CodeExtractor. As a result we end up with stale references to the llvm.assume calls that were moved to the outlined function in the parent function's cache. The problem

Hello, The CodeExtractor contains a std::set<BasicBlock*> to keep track of the blocks to extract. Iterators on this set are not deterministic, and so the functions that are generated are not (the order of the inputs/outputs can change). The attached patch uses a SetVector instead. Ok to apply ? Thanks, Julien -- Julien Lerouge PGP Key Id: 0xB1964A62 PGP Fingerprint: 392D 4BAD DB8B CE7F

On Jan 8, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Julien Lerouge wrote: > Hello, > > The CodeExtractor contains a std::set<BasicBlock*> to keep track of > the > blocks to extract. Iterators on this set are not deterministic, and so > the functions that are generated are not (the order of the > inputs/outputs can change). > > The attached patch uses a SetVector instead. Ok to apply ?

On Dec 1, 2012, at 11:49 PM, "Kuperstein, Michael M" <michael.m.kuperstein at intel.com> wrote: > I definitely support this. > > In fact we were about to send a very similar proposal. The main difference I can see between this proposal and ours was that we named the attribute "noduplicate". > I graciously defer to James on the bikeshade color issue. Yes,

Hi all, Guard intrinsics[0] are similar in nature to Assume intrinsics, in that the condition passed to a guard intrinsic call is known to be true at locations dominated (but *not* post-dominated) by the call[1]. I'd like to re-use the AssumptionCache infrastructure that already exists to teach the mid level optimizer to exploit this property. The steps I want to take are (not necessarily

On Dec 2, 2012, at 10:11 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > 3) Please change random parts of the compiler to use CodeMetrics, instead of scattering random checks for this attribute throughout the code. Anything duplicating code and not using CodeMetrics is just plain incorrect. One problem that we may run into when using CodeMetrics is compile time. In many cases we

2009/1/3 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > On Jan 2, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Misha Brukman wrote: > > 2009/1/2 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > >> On Jan 2, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Misha Brukman wrote: >> Do you have a specific example of a unit test that would need these? I >> really think these should stay private. >> > > Let's take

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:25 AM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:34 PM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com>

I'm not aware of anything else in LLVM that performs outlining. Ayal (CCed) may be able to help you regarding CodeExtractor fixes. Thanks, Michael On 12 April 2016 at 14:21, Minghwa Wang <mwang2 at cse.scu.edu> wrote: > Thank you Michael and Tom for the quick reply. > > According to your experience and comments, CodeExtractor is buggy only > works for special cases but

Hi, Thanks for the pointers. My patch now calls the attribute "noduplicate", and updates CodeMetrics to have another field: bool notDuplicatable; Which semantically is "containsIndirectBr || containsNoDuplicateInst". I didn't repurpose containsIndirectBr because I felt what I'm looking for is sufficiently different (indirectbr inhibits inlining, whereas noduplicate

I am working on a pass to extract small regions of code to run somewhere else (different node in a cluster). Basically what I need is the ability to isolate a region of code, get its inputs and outputs, create a new function with the extracted code and code aggregating the in and out parameters as structs that can be cast for a “void*”-based interface. It looks like the CodeExtractor

Hi All, I’m currently working on a simple task which needs to transform loops into tail-recursive functions. I found the CodeExtractor class a handy helper to use, but later encountered a problem. Consider the following CU struct S { int a, b; }; int foo(struct S *s, unsigned n) {   struct S *next = s;   unsigned i;   for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) {     if (!s[i].a)      

Hi, I found a problem in CodeExtractor::severSplitPHINodes() <CodeExtractor.cpp>. The algorithm first separates the header block into two, one containing only PHI nodes and the other containing the remaining non-PHI nodes. The variable NewBB holds the pointer to the latter half block. Later, it tries to update DT information. if (DT) DT->splitBlock(NewBB); In splitBlock, it checks

Hi, I have problems to estimate the loop exit count of a simple loop with the ScalarEvolution class. simple loop: ...... int a = 0; for(int i; i < 10; ++i){ a = a + 1; }; ...... For the loop analyzation I use the ScalarEvolution class with the following initialization: ...... void analysis(Function* func) DominatorTree DT = DominatorTree(); DT.recalculate(*func);

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 2, 2012, at 10:11 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > 3) Please change random parts of the compiler to use CodeMetrics, instead > of scattering random checks for this attribute throughout the code. > Anything duplicating code and not using CodeMetrics is just plain

On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 05:04:17PM -0800, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jan 8, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Julien Lerouge wrote: > >Hello, > > > >The CodeExtractor contains a std::set<BasicBlock*> to keep track > >of the > >blocks to extract. Iterators on this set are not deterministic, and so > >the functions that are generated are not (the order of the >

I have a transformation where I'd like to use both DominatorTree (for ExtractCodeRegion), and DemoteRegisterToMemory (i.e., reg2mem). The transformation is phased, so all occurrences of getAnalysis<DominatorTree>(Function) happen before any occurrence of getAnalysisID<FunctionPass>(&DemoteRegisterToMemoryID, Function). If I register these two passes with DominatorTree first, I

On Nov 19, 2008, at 7:41 AM, Jack Tzu-Han Hung wrote: > Hi, > > I found a problem in CodeExtractor::severSplitPHINodes() > <CodeExtractor.cpp>. > > The algorithm first separates the header block into two, one > containing only PHI nodes and the other containing the remaining non- > PHI nodes. The variable NewBB holds the pointer to the latter half > block.

On Oct 20, 2010, at 4:05 AM, Luke Dalessandro wrote: > If I register DemoteRegisterToMemoryID first I'd expect this to work. > then I get this assert during code extraction. > > CodeExtractor.cpp:681: llvm::Function*<unnamed>::CodeExtractor::ExtractCodeRegion(const std::vector<llvm::BasicBlock*, std::allocator<llvm::BasicBlock*> >&): Assertion

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Sean Silva" <chisophugis at gmail.com>, "Xinliang David Li" > <davidxl at google.com>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Davide > Italiano" <dccitaliano at