similar to: Register Dataflow Analysis on X86

Do you know whether it has been fixed on the 8.0.1 release? Scott On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:45 AM Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at quicinc.com<mailto:kparzysz at quicinc.com>> wrote: The one blocking issue that existed in the past has been fixed. I haven’t had time to do any work on it lately, but I’m not aware of any fundamental problems that would make it not work on x86. --

Hi Scott, That #1073741833 is a register mask. They are treated as aggregate registers (essentially sets of registers), so if it includes R9D and R11D, it will be treated as being aliased with both. These separate defs are there because they reach disjoint registers. -- Krzysztof Parzyszek kparzysz at quicinc.com<mailto:kparzysz at quicinc.com> AI tools development From: Scott

Hi Scott, Sorry for the late reply, I was out of office during the holidays. 1. A def node can reach either a use node, or another def node. In the highlighted phi node (p3224), the def (d3225) reaches another def (1598) in statement (s1597), that’s why it’s needed. 2. The reason why the def of R11 in s1578 is not connected directly to the use in s1725 is that there may be an intervening

Ugh, that would be a “yes” then… -- Krzysztof Parzyszek kparzysz at quicinc.com<mailto:kparzysz at quicinc.com> AI tools development From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 10:05 AM To: Dangeti Tharun kumar <cs15mtech11002 at iith.ac.in>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: [EXT] Re:

I don't remember the details of the particular case where we encountered this, but I think the loop started with the condition check and ended with an unconditional branch back to the beginning. -- Krzysztof Parzyszek  kparzysz at quicinc.com   LLVM compiler development -----Original Message----- From: Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 3:00 PM

You are welcome. I changed the pattern, the same old error pop up again, crash in the same place. Type set is empty for each HW mode: possible type contradiction in the pattern below (use -print-records with llvm-tblgen to see all expanded records). vtInt: &nbsp; (vt:{ *:[Other] }) UNREACHABLE executed at /home/nancy/work/rpp_clang/llvm/utils/TableGen/CodeGenDAGPatterns.cpp:824!

Hi, In "target-features" list in LLVM-IR, there are "+feature", "-feature". My question is, does "-feature" is equivalent to not specifying a feature at all? For example: *attributes #0 = { "target-cpu"="znver2" "target-features"="+avx -avx2" }* Wheather it is equalent to omitting the avx2 from list? *attributes #0

def STOREbos { // InstructionEncoding Instruction RPPInst RPPInstMMEMrr &nbsp; field bits<32&gt; Inst = { 0, 0, 0, 1, rs1{2}, rs1{1}, rs1{0}, index{0}, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, rbase{3}, rbase{2}, rbase{1}, rbase{0}, rbase{4}, roffset{4}, roffset{3}, roffset{2}, roffset{1}, roffset{0}, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }; &nbsp; field bits<32&gt; SoftFail = { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,

Thanks for the clarification. The `except` seemed dangling to me, but it's early here. Just curious... how do we end up with a mixed type BUILD_VECTOR? That's counterintuitive. On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 10:58 AM Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Mixed integer types are ok, but the values will get truncated to the element type of the output

Hi Krzysztof, Today I try it on llvm9.0.0 version. &nbsp; def bos : RPPInstMMEMrr<OPC_STORE, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (outs), (ins MGPR:$rs1, SGPR32:$rbase, MGPR:$roffset, uimm2:$rshift), &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; !strconcat(opcodestr, ""), "$rs1,

Mixed types aren't allowed. They are checked for in VerifySDNode in SelectionDAG.cpp and will fail an asserts build. ~Craig On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 8:25 AM Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > The problem can happen when you want to build a vector of i8, but i8 > itself is not legal on your target. All operands to BUILD_VECTOR will be >

Hi, Is there a mechanism in place to use the new pass manager with target-specific passes added (at the moment) via addIRPasses in TargetPassConfig? I did see any code related to that, did I miss something? Is it in plan? -- Krzysztof Parzyszek kparzysz at quicinc.com AI tools development

Hi, for DAG-to-DAG instruction selection I’ve implemented a pattern, which creates from one SDNode two instructions, something like: def: Pat<(NEW_SDNODE REG:$r1), (INST_OUT (INST_IN), REG:$r1)>; where INST_IN doesn't accepts any inputs and INST_OUT accepts two inputs - one returned by INST_IN and REG;$r1. Is there any possibility to ‘Glue’ two instruction created

Hi all, I have an Instruction object I from where I can correctly obtain the parent doing I.getParent(). Now I would like to understand how to obtain the PHI Nodes in that block. Do you suggest to iterate all over the instructions since the PHI nodes are always at the beginning or should I use another approach? What the best way to iterate over the instructions in a block? Thanks Alberto

Ubuntu 20.04, Dovecot 2.3.7.2, SpamProbe v1.4d. For the past weeks my sieve filters that call spamprobe have been crashing out for some users. I have a dozen similar server setups and this is not happening on any of the other servers and it was working just fine for a year up until recently. This particular server is quite busy. There is plenty of disk space and inode usage is about 2.5%.

> On Jan 22, 2020, at 19:49, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > In short, I hit a major stumbling block. I hadn't account for the fact that some atomic stores dependent on element type (float vs int for instance) for legality. I think this qualifies as a target/infrastructure bug. It should always be legal to cast the FP atomic load/store to integer. This

The associated patch caused a compilation problems on Hexagon: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43302 The splitting of a live interval should not be done automatically upon creation. Calling LIS->getInterval(Reg) should not go around changing the code behind the scenes. There is already a function “splitSeparateComponents” that does that. It should be added where it’s missing. --

On 06 Jul 2020, at 20:30, Mark Constable <markc at renta.net> wrote: > you could try disabling SSL/STARTTLS on port 143. What? I?ve never seen SSL/StARTTLS on port 143,a dn I doubt that would work? -- Rumour is information distilled so finely that it can filter through anything. It does not need doors and windows -- sometimes it does not need people. It can exist free and wild, running

On Tue Jul 07 2020 02:07:08 GMT-0400 (Eastern Standard Time), Mark Constable <markc at renta.net> wrote: > FWIW I meant if the client is Windows7/old-Outlook then changing either > 993/SSL or 143/STARTTLS to 143/NONE could help pick up the mail. We had > to do this for a 100 or so clients a few months ago after upgrading to > Ubuntu 20.04. Really, really bad idea. You just

On 16/7/20 5:54 am, Benny Pedersen wrote: >>> FWIW I meant if the client is Windows7/old-Outlook then changing >>> either 993/SSL or 143/STARTTLS to 143/NONE could help pick up the >>> mail. > > windows 7 just need tls 1.0, why its need to disabled all, is as well > beyong me, do not disable tls 1.0 in dovecot aslong one have windows > 7 clients Would anyone