similar to: RFC: Mark BasicAA as a CFG-only pass.

On 2/10/20 2:35 PM, Alina Sbirlea wrote: > Hi, > > Here's a tentative patch of the changes for this: D74353 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74353>. I suppose that, as expected, it's invalidated less often this way. Given that it's generally stateless, does this really represent a cost savings?  -Hal > > Thank you, > Alina > > > On Mon, Feb 10,

Hi Florian, First, thank you for working on this. I'm really glad to see this work so close to being enabled. I think the numbers look good for run time, and the benefits of switching for all configurations are clear. For compile time, the current regressions are noticeable, but not a deal breaker in my opinion. I'm very much in favor of switching in all configurations. To address some

Hi Florian, Following up on D86967, I missed that all the timings were using the legacy pass manager. Did you do any testing on the compile and run time impact for the new pass manager? Thank you, Alina On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:51 PM Florian Hahn <florian_hahn at apple.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for all the responses! > > My understanding is that there were no

Hi all, After a long ride, I'm planning to turn on the use of MemorySSA for loop passes (D58311 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58311>) tomorrow (8/29). Please let me know if you have issues, concerns or feedback on this. Best, Alina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Yes, this is odd. On my clang.bc Without: 2.2967 ( 53.8%) 0.0242 ( 26.4%) 2.3210 ( 53.2%) 2.3227 ( 53.2%) Memory SSA 2.3364 ( 53.7%) 0.0246 ( 25.7%) 2.3610 ( 53.1%) 2.3636 ( 53.1%) Memory SSA 2.3353 ( 54.0%) 0.0258 ( 27.0%) 2.3611 ( 53.4%) 2.3632 ( 53.3%) Memory SSA With two getModRefInfo calls: 3.0302 ( 58.8%) 0.0328 ( 29.9%) 3.0630 ( 58.2%) 3.0858 ( 58.2%)

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > FWIW: Bootstrap is probably not a good test of this, there are bugs filed > where we end up with tons of loads and stores to test against each other. > That's actually fairly rare in bootstrap, as you can see. > Let me get you some test cases. > SG, thanks! > > My guess is that we

Hello, Following up on last week's LLVM-Dev meeting where we discussed MemorySSA related topics, I created the following google doc <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-uEEZfmRdPThZlctOq9eXlmUaSSAAi8oKxhrPY_lpjk/edit#> with some of the meeting notes and planning for future meetings. For those who participated, please feel free to add items I may have missed into the document and cc

Hi Hal, Yes, the "internal" caches AA would be valid as long as the IR is not mutated. Are you suggesting keeping them? It's possible, but it will be very tricky to ensure they are cleared at the right times and they will likely be prone to adding hidden bugs. I don't have strong indications currently that keeping such information would be useful by other users, other than

Hi, This came up in https://reviews.llvm.org/D38569, and I'd like some input on what's the best way to get alias and mod-ref info without having two alias calls. A couple of ideas: (a) Extend the getModRefInfo interface (+getModRefBehavior, +gerArgModRefInfo) to return a pair {ModRefInfo, AliasResult}. The AliasResult can be optional based on an argument e.g.: struct MRI_AR {

Hi Krzysztof, Could I get some background info on reasoning about hoisting in the presence of volatile loads? I was looking at this testcase: test/Transforms/LICM/volatile-alias.ll Context: MemorySSA treats volatile loads as defs. I'm looking to better understand expected behavior in the presence of volatile accesses. More context: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40375. Thanks in advance, Alina

Hi Dave, It may be possible to do this with the current API, but what I was looking for is a common API for existing block types. For example there is no succ_begin for Machine BasicBlock. I'm looking to make the CFGSuccessors and CFGPredecessors classes in CFGDiff.h templated, and this needs a common API for all types instantiations. Does this clarify your question or did I misunderstand

> On Feb 29, 2016, at 10:50 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > > > From: "Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Alina Sbirlea" <alina.sbirlea at gmail.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 7:06:51 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC:

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 10/10/2017 02:49 PM, Alina Sbirlea wrote: > > Sigh >> I should have taken the time to give a better example. >> The must-alias part is irrelevant to an example (it only requires >> read-onlyness) >> >> You said "LICM doesn't move calls, so we'd never really

All, To get the discussion going in a focused manner, here is an initial patch with a running test. The test is from the Halide suite and is checking the correctness of several simd operations. (Notes: the patch is large due to the number of operations being tested; I expect a lot of changes before actually landing it, this is simply to continue the discussion using a concrete example.)

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 2:30 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 8:31 AM Alina Sbirlea <alina.sbirlea at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Dave, >> >> It may be possible to do this with the current API, but what I was >> looking for is a common API for existing block types. For example there is >> no

Great, thanks! Are you planning on just talking about these things with slides? Do we have other things to which we can link for people to read? -Hal Hal Finkel Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory ________________________________ From: Tarique Islam <tislam at ca.ibm.com> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:19:31 AM To:

To join our call on Thursday, May 28th @ 9-10 AM central time / 2-3 PM UTC please use this information: Meeting URL https://bluejeans.com/643493129?src=join_info Meeting ID 643 493 129 Want to dial in from a phone? Dial one of the following numbers: +1.312.216.0325 (US (Chicago)) +1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) +1.866.226.4650 (US Toll Free) (see all numbers -

I really don't understand this. Why is a C++ reference useful? Instead, we have an IR reference: the unoptimized IR. I think it pretty important to not phrase everything in terms of C or C++ or Clang... =/ What if there are IR constructs that simply cannot be produced by C++? We're adding lots of those for managed languages. If there is a practical concern with having IR-based test

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Alina Sbirlea" <alina.sbirlea at gmail.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 7:06:51 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Add bitcode tests to test-suite > Sent from my iPhone > On Feb

> In your new proposal, doing & on the result of getModRef() may yield unexpected results. Agreed. I made the change I proposed locally, and, while it simplifies some cases, it makes other bit-wise operations look unintuitive. > Maybe we should just hide all that in inline functions or something and make it an enum class Noted, and looking into this option. Hoping a couple of static