similar to: An issue with "lifetime.start" and storing "undef"

Is your case the case mentioned in the subject or a different case? ~Craig On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 8:11 PM raghesh <raghesh.a at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Sanjay for your comments. > > So, if we want to add a transformation avoiding the one-use check, which > one is the ideal pass? Shall we do it in -aggressive-instcombine? I came > to know that if the pattern search

A couple more general comments: 1. There shouldn't be any correctness issues removing one-use checks (the transform should be safe independently of use-counts). 2. Ideally, you can remove a m_OneUse() from the code and run 'make check' or similar, and you will see a regression test failure because we have a 'negative' test to cover that pattern. That should make it clear that

Dear All, The InstCombine pass performs the following transformation. Z / (X / Y) => (Y * Z) / X This is performed only when operand Op1 ( (X/Y) in this case) has only one use in future. The code snippet is shown below. if (match(Op1, m_OneUse(m_FDiv(m_Value(X), m_Value(Y)))) && (!isa<Constant>(Y) || !isa<Constant>(Op0))) { // Z / (X / Y) => (Y *

I've been looking at GlobalAddress lowering strategy recently and was wondering if anyone had any ideas, insights, or experience to share. ## Background When lowering global address, which is typically done in FooTargetLowering::LowerGlobalAddress you have the option of folding in the global offset into the global address or else emitting the base globaladdress and a separate ADD node for the

using `opt --print-after-all -O3` I see that EarlyCSE is interpreting the call to `ceil` and constant fold: *** IR Dump After Early CSE *** ; Function Attrs: nobuiltin nounwind define i1 @do_test() #2 { Entry: %0 = call fastcc float @ceil(float 0.000000e+00) #6 %1 = call fastcc float @ceil32(float 0.000000e+00) #6 %2 = fcmp fast oeq float 0.000000e+00, %1 ret i1 %2 } So just running `opt

Hi All, We set up a Polly buildbot tester and would like to add this to LLVM buildbots. We want to commit the buildbot scripts to the LLVM/zorg repository and include buildslave to buildbot.llvm.org Can any one help us to do this? Regards, -- Raghesh

Dear all, I am Raghesh, a student pursuing M.Tech at Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, India. I would like to make contribution to the Polly project (http://wiki.llvm.org/Polyhedral_optimization_framework) as part of GSOC 2011. I have gained some experience working in OpenMP Code generation for Polly. This is almost stable now and planning to test with the polybench benchmarks. Some of

Hi, raghesh and I are working in Polly on automatically generating OpenMP calls. This works nicely on a 64bit architecture, however the functions we need to generate are slightly different on different platforms. The reason for the difference is that e.g "long" in > bool GOMP_loop_runtime_next(long, long) has a different size on different architectures. Currently we generate

(2011/06/10 13:25), Tobias Grosser wrote: > On 06/10/2011 12:00 AM, MORIYAMA Tomohiro wrote: >> H, Tobias >> Thank you for your reply. >> >> >> Tobias Grosser wrote: >>> Interesting. On what kind of Platform are you running this? Is it still >>> Ubuntu 11.04? I assume it's an intel platform, but is it a 32-bit or >>> 64bit? >>

Hal, Tobias, et al. – I am strongly in favor of seeing a broader range of loop transformations, supported by strong dependence analysis, added to LLVM, and the Polly infrastructure seems to be by far our best bet to make that happen. I have a couple of questions: 1) Integer constraint libraries like ISL (and Omega, which I used extensively in a previous project) are fundamentally solving

(2011/06/10 14:01), Tobias Grosser wrote: > On 06/10/2011 01:52 AM, MORIYAMA Tomohiro wrote: >> (2011/06/10 13:25), Tobias Grosser wrote: >>> On 06/10/2011 12:00 AM, MORIYAMA Tomohiro wrote: >>>> H, Tobias >>>> Thank you for your reply. >>>> >>>> >>>> Tobias Grosser wrote: >>>>> Interesting. On what kind

On 06/10/2011 01:52 AM, MORIYAMA Tomohiro wrote: > (2011/06/10 13:25), Tobias Grosser wrote: >> On 06/10/2011 12:00 AM, MORIYAMA Tomohiro wrote: >>> H, Tobias >>> Thank you for your reply. >>> >>> >>> Tobias Grosser wrote: >>>> Interesting. On what kind of Platform are you running this? Is it still >>>> Ubuntu 11.04? I

Hi All, The PRE or GVNPRE is not effective for the below use case. int sum; int phi =30; void f (int i, int *a) { if ((a[i] << (1)) > -15) sum =(phi+ 0x7fffffffL )/ a[i]; if ((a[i] << (2)) > -15) sum =(phi + 0x7fffffffL) /a[i]; } respective asm (clang on trunk ) #clang -O3 -S test.c BB#0: # %entry pushl %edi pushl %esi

Hi, developers, Recently, I am trying to use the LLVM Region analysis, the LLVM version is 10. I use opt to print out the region analysis result using "opt -view-regions-only region.ll". However, I am confused about the result produced by LLVM, I found that LLVM seems to skip loop preheader when grouping blocks into regions. Here is a simple example code: ```region.c void split(int

hi raghesh, > > 5. Porting Polly to Various architectures. > ------------------------------------------------- > > Currently Polly generates everything as 64 bit integer, which is > problamatic for embedded platforms. > you may try something like this: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-January/037277.html I am already planning to implement this, and it is

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 01:38:06PM -0500, Tobias Grosser wrote: > Hi, > > raghesh and I are working in Polly on automatically generating OpenMP > calls. This works nicely on a 64bit architecture, > however the functions we need to generate are slightly different on > different platforms. > > The reason for the difference is that e.g "long" in > > >

The scoreboard hazard detector that I've added for the PPC 440 is not detecting hazards as it should (which certainly could be my fault somehow, but...). For example, it will produce a schedule that looks like... SU(28): 0x127969b0: f64,ch = LFD 0x12793aa0, 0x1277b4f0, 0x127965b0<Mem:LD8[%scevgep100](tbaa=!"double")> [ORD=41] [ID=28] SU(46): 0x12796ab0: f64 = FADD 0x127969b0,

Hi, > out.s: Assembler messages: > out.s:8: Error: bad register name `%rsp' > out.s:9: Error: bad register name `%rsp)' > out.s:12: Error: invalid instruction suffix for `call' > out.s:14: Error: bad register name `%rax' > out.s:18: Error: bad register name `%rcx' > out.s:22: Error: bad register name `%rcx)' > out.s:23: Error: bad register name

H, Tobias Thank you for your reply. Tobias Grosser wrote: (Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:41:05 -0300) >On 06/08/2011 01:17 AM, MORIYAMA Tomohiro wrote: >> Hi, all >> >> I tried Polly installation on Ubuntu. >> >> On its building, it returned no errors. >> But when I run "make polly-test", it returns 11 unexpected failures as >> follows. >>

Hi. My plan would be: 1w Study sources of Polly and LLVM docs relating to analysis. 2w Create tests which demonstrate problems with NSW/NUW 3-4w Fix the handling of wrap overflows. 5w Complete middle term paperwork. 6w Create tests for each of cases which are not currently optimized (e.g. have min/max, sext/zext, trunc or unsigned comparisons in the loop bounds or memory accesses). 7w Learn how