similar to: Current status of Attributor

On 4/29/20 4:12 PM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 12:58 PM Ejjeh, Adel via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Specifically, I want to be able to know when a called function does not >> have any side effects (e.g. math library functions like sqrt) >> > > Apologies for the pedantry, but I believe sqrt may

[AMD Official Use Only - Internal Distribution Only] Hi , There seems to be some issue with attributor, exactly in File Attributor.cpp, Function Attributor::rewriteFunctionSignatures(), Line No: 1600 (approrimate). The llvm source code at above address is as follows: // Eliminate the instructions *after* we visited all of them. for (auto &CallSitePair : CallSitePairs) {

Hi Suresh, thanks for reporting this! I thought I fixed this with 8d94d3c3b44c3a27a69b153cef9be4b8e481150e. Did you run before or after that commit? Cheers, Johannes On 5/15/20 7:17 AM, Mani, Suresh via llvm-dev wrote: > [AMD Public Use] > > Hi , > > Please ignore the earlier header of Internal and Official use only. > > Thanks > M Suresh > > From: llvm-dev

Hi Johannes et al, > -----Original Message----- > From: Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> [..] > On 11/06, Jeroen Dobbelaere wrote: > > >From: Alexey Zhikhartsev > > [..] > > > We would love to see your patches merged as soon as possible, so I was > wondering: do you think the lack of bitcode support will prevent that from > happening? >

Hi Alexey, >From: Alexey Zhikhartsev [..] > We would love to see your patches merged as soon as possible, so I was wondering: do you think the lack of bitcode support will prevent that from happening? Yes, I think that the lack of bitcode support will prevent it. During the Developers meeting, I also talked with Hal and Johannes. They had some extra remarks: - (1) the restrict

Hi Johannes. My name is Hideto Ueno. I’m interested in working on GSoC project, “Improve (function) attribute inference”. As far as I see [0] and related patches, you have already implemented algorithms for many of the deducible function attributes with the new framework “Attributor”. I doubt whether there is still room for improvement as a GSoC project. If there is, let me know. Thanks.

Hi, everyone, We've had a number of discussions recently, including on the Flang technical call, about potential improvements to LLVM's alias analysis to support handling restrict and restrict-like semantics. We would like to try having a call to discuss these issues further. Please, if you're interested in joining, indicate your availability (prior to the end of this week):

Hi Farad, > I tried to do this for the NoUnwind attribute Hmm, I don't have experience with this attribute but it seems like a good starting point since it doesn't do much. First of all, be sure that you run with: opt -passes=attributor -attributor-disable=false This uses the new pass manager which is another discussion. Now, to the point: If you open nounwind.ll, it has a bunch of

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 think calling the attribute "used" is confusing. I'd suggest the following: "not_poison": If an argument is marked not_poison, and the argument is poison at runtime, the call is instant UB. Whether an argument is poison is checked after the rules for other attributes like "nonnull" and "align" are applied. This makes it clear that the IR semantics

Hi Johannes, >> Not sure the semantics of "used" you propose is sufficient. AFAIU the >> proposal, "used" could only be used in cases where the function will >> always trigger UB if poison is passed as argument. The semantics of >> attributes is usually the other way around, since function calls need >> to have UB as strong as the worst

Hi Fahad, > > Improve dynamic memory related capabilities of Attributor. For example > Improve HeapToStackConversions. Maybe such deductions can help safety > (dis)provers. For example, can we improve the use-after-free bug detection > using some attributes? > Stefan should know more about H2S. Regarding the use-after-free, I don't > think there's currently any plans

Hi Alexey, Adding llvm-ir bitcode support means adding/adapting the tags for LOAD/STORE instructions and adding the support for the noalias_sidechannel at the right places. I had a short attempt to implement it when preparing the public patches, but I am not familiar with that part of the llvm code. When I noticed that it would take a lot longer than anticipated, I postponed it. Also because it

Thanks, Jeroen, that really helps. A follow-up question, if you don't mind. What if we have code somewhat similar to your example in assign3() but it's in C++ and the pointer derived from x is stored in a class member field: class S { public: S(int *d): data(d) {} int *getData() { return data; } private: int *__restrict__ data; }; void assign4(int *pA, long N) { int

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:

Not sure the semantics of "used" you propose is sufficient. AFAIU the proposal, "used" could only be used in cases where the function will always trigger UB if poison is passed as argument. The semantics of attributes is usually the other way around, since function calls need to have UB as strong as the worst behavior of the function. If a function may for some reason trigger

Johannes, did you try it on AMD GPUs? If not, I think it might be early to claim it as a general interface for NVidia/AMD GPUs. I'm ok, if you want tointroduce a basic class for the GPU-specific codegen, but it must be done step-by-step and thoroughly tested and reviewed. Theremightbe some parts, common with NVPTX codegen. You can put the commonfunctions into a base class and remove them from

Yes, I understand. I just don't understand why there are 15 review links. as to the format of the list, we previously had a list of feature for 4.5 (before it was fully supported), we can reuse this old format. Best regards, Alexey Bataev > 6 июня 2019 г., в 19:12, Narayanaswamy, Ravi <ravi.narayanaswamy at intel.com> написал(а): > > Alexey, > Johannes want to put all

Hi all, We noticed a lot of unnecessary ptrtoint instructions that stand in way of some of our optimizations; the code pattern looks like this: bb1: %int1 = ptrtoint %struct.s* %ptr1 to i64 bb2: %int2 = ptrtoint %struct.s* %ptr2 to i64 %bb3: %phi.node = phi i64 [ %int1, %bb1 ], [%int2, %bb2 ] %ptr = inttoptr i64 %phi.node to %struct.s* In short, the pattern above arises due to: 1.

Hi all, My name is Fahad Nayyar. I am an undergraduate student from India. I am interested to participate in GSOC under the project “Improve inter-procedural analyses and optimizations”. I have been using LLVM for the past 8 months. I have written various intra-procedural analysis in LLVM as FunctionPass for my course projects and research projects. But I’ve not contributed to the LLVM