similar to: PSLP: Padded SLP Automatic Vectorization

On 9/29/2020 14:37, David Chisnall via llvm-dev wrote: > On 28/09/2020 15:45, Matt P. Dziubinski via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hey, I noticed this talk from the EuroLLVM 2015 >> (https://llvm.org/devmtg/2015-04/slides/pslp_slides_EUROLLVM2015.pdf) >> on the PSLP vectorization algorithm (CGO 2015 paper: >> http://vporpo.me/papers/pslp_cgo2015.pdf). >> >> Is anyone

You may also be interested in the following resources on compilers correctness (articles, software, and talks -- from the general topics to the ones specifically focused on testing, validation, and verification): https://github.com/MattPD/cpplinks/blob/master/compilers.correctness.md Best regards, Matt P. Dziubinski On 12/7/2018 20:19, Philip Reames via llvm-dev wrote: > There's also

On 7/13/2020 21:30, Thomas Lively via llvm-dev wrote: > Part of the problem is that ISel patterns are like their own DSL inside > the TableGen DSL, so keywords like "ins", "outs", and "ops" aren't > keywords at the TableGen level, but rather at the level of the ISel > system implemented with TableGen. Copying existing patterns and reading > the

Hi! On 7/10/2020 07:17, Shuai Wang wrote: > Hello! > > Thank you very much! Yes, that makes a lot of sense to me. However, just > want to point out two things that are still unclear: > > 1. The output contains a alias set of only one element, for instance: > "must alias, Mod       Pointers: (i32* %y, LocationSize::precise(4))" > > This one really confused

Hi, On 1/1/2018 07:26, Yuri via llvm-dev wrote: > I was thinking to make a simple code analysis tool to, for example, > find all system calls that have unchecked return codes, but I can't > find a binding for any scripting language. And I am averse to writing > this in C++. One possible choice would be llvmcpy -- Python bindings used by the rev.ng (https://rev.ng/) project:

There is llvmlite http://llvmlite.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ , but it doesn't seem to support reading individual instructions, based on these docs. I was thinking to make a simple code analysis tool to, for example, find all system calls that have unchecked return codes, but I can't find a binding for any scripting language. And I am averse to writing this in C++. Thanks, Yuri

Hi again! Replying in chronological order: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 6:51 PM Shuai Wang <wangshuai901 at gmail.com > <mailto:wangshuai901 at gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hey Matt, > > That's awesome. Thank you very much for all the information and > clarification! Just a few follow up questions. Could you kindly shed > some lights on it? Thank

Hi, Not sure whether this matches your use case, but the Orc-based JIT used in LLI appears to be using `llvm::orc::LocalCXXRuntimeOverrides` (http://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1orc_1_1LocalCXXRuntimeOverrides.html) to override `__cxa_atexit`: https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/release_50/tools/lli/OrcLazyJIT.h#L74

Hi, Let's suppose we have an ELF executable that doesn't issue any syscall (I mean, syscalls are issued from an external dynamic library, not from the executable, and we can ignore such dynamic library because we have the proper equivalent library with the proper syscalls in MacOS and Windows). So, the question: Is it "currently possible" (by "currently possible" I

Thanks, Vedant. Yes, we have done a lot of testing of Clang/LLVM (and GCC) in the past several years (more details at https://people.inf.ethz.ch/suz/emi/index.html): [GCC/LLVM bugs: *1,602* (total) / *1,007* (fixed)] [Reports: GCC (link1 <http://tinyurl.com/ojzdt78>, link2 <http://tinyurl.com/oxlkmjc>, link3 <http://tinyurl.com/jd3jnl3>, link4

Hi Team, I am trying to understand the Microsoft PDB format and I heard that LLVM provides support to Microsoft PDB file format. It would be great if you can provide some pointers regarding the same to start with. Thanks and Regards Meena ::DISCLAIMER::

I've done compile-time experiments for AArch64 over SPEC{2000,2006} and of course the test-suite. I measure no significant compile-time impact of enabling this feature by default. I also ran the test-suite on an X86-64 machine. I can't imagine any other targets being uniquely effected in terms of compile-time by turning this on after testing both AArch64 and X86-64. I also timed running

Hey Matt, That's awesome. Thank you very much for all the information and clarification! Just a few follow up questions. Could you kindly shed some lights on it? Thank you! 1. I tried to tweak the code in the following way: - Clang [-> LLVM-IR]: https://llvm.godbolt.org/z/n9rGrs - [LLVM-IR ->] opt: https://llvm.godbolt.org/z/Uc6h5Y And i note that the outputs are: Alias sets for

Hello, I am performing alias analysis toward the following simple code: struct MyStruct { int * f1; int * f2; }; void NOALIAS(void* p, void* q){ } int main() { struct MyStruct s[2]; int a,b; s[0].f1 = &a; s[1].f1 = &b; NOALIAS(s[a].f1, s[b].f2); return 0; } When I use the following command to generate .bc code and conduct alias analysis: clang -c -emit-llvm t.c -O2 opt -basicaa

Maybe the easiest workaround would be overriding symbol resolution for the function name and redirect it to your own version in static code (and hope it has no bad side effect on your use case). I think when running 3rd party code, the only way to definitely avoid this kind of trouble is to never deallocate any code or data sections. Doug Binks mentioned that too in his cppcast about Runtime

I have not. I could feasibly do this, but I'm not set up to perform good experiments on X86-64 hardware. Furthermore, if I do it for X86-64, it only seems fair I should do it for the other backends as well, which is much less feasible for me. I'm reaching out the community to see if there's any objection based on their own measurements of this feature about defaulting it to on. Please

On Jul 28, 2013, at 12:20 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > That said, why -O3? I think we should just enable this across the board, as it doesn't seem to cause any size regression under any mode, and the compile time hit is really low. I agree. I think that it would be a good idea to enable it for -Os and -O2, but I’d like to make one step at a time.

On Jul 29, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 28, 2013, at 12:20 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > >> That said, why -O3? I think we should just enable this across the board, as it doesn't seem to cause any size regression under any mode, and the compile time hit is really low. > > > I agree. I

Revision 190916 Commit message: "Lift alignment restrictions for load/store folding on VINSERTF128/VEXTRACTF128. Fixes PR17268." Actual contents of the commit includes Index: tools/opt/opt.cpp =================================================================== --- tools/opt/opt.cpp (revision 190915) +++ tools/opt/opt.cpp (revision 190916) @@ -462,6 +462,7 @@

Hello, rsync-patches/slp.diff is still using lp_numserv which was removed by commit b583594ac7d2f8a38aca85c1bfa4b1487122377a Signed-off-by: Vitezslav Cizek <vcizek at suse.cz> --- slp.diff | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/slp.diff b/slp.diff index a9703f1..953b400 100644 --- a/slp.diff +++ b/slp.diff @@ -479,7 +479,7 @@ new file mode 100644 +