similar to: how to generate select-free LLVM IR?

I wanted to create a list with the names of variables and their values. So I wrote the following function. add.to.list.names.vars.1 <- function(lnv, vnv) { i <- 1 while (i < length(vnv)) { z <- as.character(eval(substitute(quote(vnv[i+1])))[[2]][[i + 2]]) lnv[[vnv[i]]] <- list(Name = z, Value = vnv[i+1]) i <- i + 2 } lnv } It works, but it is very

Changing the order of the checks in CodeGenPrepare::optimizeSelectInst() sounds good to me. But you may need to go further for optimum performance. For example, we may be canonicalizing math/logic IR patterns into 'select' such as in the recent: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67799 So if you want those to become ALU ops again rather than branches, then you need to do the transform later in

I agree with John; also, if you decide to go this route, you can reuse the code from CodeGenPrepare::optimizeSelectInst: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenPrepare.cpp#L6065 Alexey On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 9:00 PM John Regehr via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Several different passes introduce select instructions, such as >

On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 3:35 PM Joan Lluch via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Sanjay, > > Actually, the CodeGenPrepare::optimizeSelectInst is not doing the best it could do in some circumstances: The case of “OptSize" for targets not supporting Select was already mentioned to be detrimental. > > For targets that actually have selects, but branches

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 11:52 AM Joan Lluch <joan.lluch at icloud.com> wrote: > > Hi Roman, > > Is "test" actually an implementation of a 64-bit-wide multiplication > compiler-rt builtin? > Then i'd think the main problem is that it is being optimized in the > first place, you could end up with endless recursion… > > > No, this is not a compiler-rt

Hi, I would like to know if there's a way to avoid select instructions during the IR generation. What are the optimization passes that can result in a select instruction? i.e. I want to preserve branches in my code without disabling any other optimizations applicable. For example, void foo(int* x, int* y){ if(*x > 0){ *y = *x + 10; } else{ *y = *x + 20; } }

For the MSP430 example, I'm guess its InstCombiner::transformSExtICmp or InstCombiner::transformZExtICmp ~Craig On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 2:21 PM Support IMAP <support at sweetwilliamsl.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Ok, I just found a much simpler example of the same issue. > > Consider the following code > > int cmpge32_0(long a) { > return a>=0; > } >

Hi Sanjay, Thanks for your reply. > So yes, the IR optimizer (instcombine is the specific pass) sometimes turns icmp (and select) sequences into ALU ops. Instcombine is almost entirely *target-independent* and should remain that way. The (sometimes unfortunate) decision to create shifts were made based on popular targets of the time (PowerPC and/or x86), and other targets may have suffered

I noticed only one connection at a time is supported.Is it possible to make it accept multiple viewer sessions simultaneously ? Thanks. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

Glenn, I can't use MySQL as each node currently has MySQL however there is a lot of data that is stored locally on each box. I may have to take this route if I can't find something else but that would mean syncing all sorts of data that does not need to be synced. On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:03 PM Glenn Geller (VDOPh) <ggeller at vdo-ph.com> wrote: > Hi Dovid, > >

Hi, Can Ferret be configured to change the minimum word length of what it indexes? Right now it seems to drop words 3 characters or less, but I''d like to include words going down to 2 characters. How would I do that? Francis

Hi Well, its been quite some time... hope your are all as well as you have been more than a year ago. It just happend to be that i wrote a small pass (albeit for 2.5) which removes the select instructions which had not been there in 2.2 8-/. Since they made my bitrotting backend sad i had to find a way to get rid of them... The attached pass is slighly inspired (concerning the skeleton)

Hi, The ComputeSpeculationCost() function in Transforms/Utils/SimplifyCFG.cpp uses a higher speculation cost for Select than other instructions. Does anyone know why this is? I would like SimplifyCFG to be able to speculatively execute Select instructions. Which of these solutions makes the most sense: 1. Change speculation cost of Select from 2 to 1. 2. Add a TargetTransformInfo callback

Summary ======= I'm planning on adjusting SimplifyCFG so that it doesn't turn two-entry phi nodes into selects until later in the pass pipeline, to give passes which can understand phis but not selects more opportunity to optimize. The thing I'm trying to do which made me think of doing this is described below, but from the benchmarking I've done it looks like this is overall a

Hi, Let me try to give a bit more context on why select is so tricky. First thing to consider is which transformations we would like to support: 1) Control-flow -> select (SimplifyCFG) if (c) a = x else a = y => %a = select %c, %x, %y 2) select -> control-flow; reverse of 1) Not sure if this is done at IR level, or only later at SDAG. 3) select ->

I'm concerned that we're focusing on one side of this.  Let me point out a few concerns w/changing the canonical form here: 1. LICM does not know how to hoist or sink regions.  It does know how to hoist and sink selects. 2. InstCombine has limited support for triangles/diamonds, but fairly extensive support for selects. 3. EarlyCSE and GVN do not know how to eliminate fully

I think so far most individual projects have their own statistics on build time/performance impact on switching to the new PM, but I agree that there should at least be one place that people can reference on the impact. On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:14 PM Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > Thanks for all the hard work that went into getting it here. > > +1 > >

Hi, Can any llvm pass change simple return branch into select/return pair? For example: define i10 @mod_N(i10 zeroext %a) zeroext { entry: %tmp2 = icmp ugt i10 %a, -400 ; <i1> [#uses=1] br i1 %tmp2, label %cond_true, label %return cond_true: ; preds = %entry %tmp5 = add i10 %a, 400 ; <i10> [#uses=1] ret i10 %tmp5 return: ; preds = %entry ret

> On Aug 15, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 08/15/2018 02:38 PM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev wrote: >> I'm concerned that we're focusing on one side of this. Let me point out a few concerns w/changing the canonical form here: >> >> LICM does not know how to hoist or sink regions. It does know

Hey all, I went through the docs in Ferret''s page, plus a quick search through the email list (thread titles), and I couldn''t find any info on how to have Ferret storing it''s data using UTF-8. In the scenario I would use it, nothing''s being stored outside (like external databases). So it''s just how Ferret would do it that I''m interesting in