similar to: [LLVMdev] Trouble implementing a new subtarget for X86

Hi all, When compiling some programs using the Mips backend i'm getting this assert message on lib/CodeGen/LiveInterval.cpp:227: "Range is not entirely in interval!" I don't know yet if it's something that is missing on the backend code or why the range to be removed it outside the interval, does anyone have any clue? A more detailed output is attached. The program i tried

also i further run the following command; llc -debug filer-knl_o3.ll and its output is attached here. by looking at the output can we say that legalization runs fine and the error is due to instruction selection/ pattern matching which is not yet implemented? so do i need to worry and try to correct it at this stage or should i move forward to implement instruction selection/ pattern matching?

Hi there, I am currently trying to create an LLVM Backend for a RISC architecture and running into problems with setCC and brcond. First a few explanations: The architecture doesn't have a dedicated flag register, but seven 1-bit-wide so called "condition registers", c0-c6, which can be set by e.g. a compare instruction: > cmp ne, c0, r1, 123 It also supports conditional

On 2011-03-09 02:51, Bill Wendling wrote: > There are LLVM 2.9 RC1 pre-release tarballs source available. You can find them here: > llvm 2.9rc1 test on Dualcore ARM running Ubuntu Natty gunzip llvm-2.9rc1.src.tar.gz tar zxvf llvm-2.9rc1.src.tar cd llvm-2.9-build ../llvm-2.9rc1/configure --enable-shared time make clean ;time make CXXFLAGS=-marm CFLAGS=-marm xranby at

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jingyue Wu" <jingyue at google.com> > To: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org>, "Mark Heffernan" <meheff at google.com>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 1:31:59 PM >

Apologies if this is in the archive - did look but couldn't find it. Does anyone have any experience of migrating from CommunigatePro to Dovecot? We currently run CGP 5.3.4, supporting a small system (20 or so users, one domain). We've been using it for years, and have a mixed bag of MailDir and mbox folders accessed via IMAP clients. Some users have large mail accounts (15GB total).

On 08/02/2012 11:11 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> A new self-contained `LibCallSimplifier` class will be created. An instance >> of the class will be instantiated when running the `InstCombiner` pass. It's >> folding functionality will be invoked from `InstCombiner::tryOptimizeCall` and >> the implementation will be table-driven like `SimplifyLibCalls`. All of the

>> >> Here we are evaluating C2 before C. If the original loop never >> >> executed then we had never evaluated C2, while now we do. So we >> >> need >> >> to make sure there's no UB for branching on C2. Freeze ensures >> >> that >> >> so we would actually have 'if (freeze(C2))' instead. >> >> Note

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > On 03/09/2017 12:14 PM, Wei Mi via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> In >> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120827/063200.html, >> consecutive bitfields are wrapped as a group and represented as a >> large integer and emits loads stores and bit operations appropriate

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > I agree. The vectorizer is a *lowering* pass, and much like LSR and it > loses information. A few months ago some of us talked about this and came > up with a general draft for the ideal pass ordering. > Where? On the mailing list? > If I remember correctly the plan was that the second half of the

>> A use of freeze is to enable speculative execution. For example, loop >> switching does the following transformation: >> while (C) { >> if (C2) { >> A >> } else { >> B >> } >> } >> => >> if (C2) { >> while (C) >> A >> } else { >> while (C) >> B >> } >>

On Aug 3, 2012, at 12:56 PM, Meador Inge <meadori at codesourcery.com> wrote: >>> An option for enabling/disabling library call simplification in `InstCombiner` >>> will be available. For backwards compatibility perhaps it should remain >>> '-simplify-libcalls'. The `NumSimplified` and `NumAnnotated` statistics shall >>> be added to

Hello, all experts, My major is computer-aied drug design ( main QSAR). Now, my paper need be reviesed, and one reviewer ask me do genetic algorithm coupled with gaussian process method (GA+GP). my data: training set: 191*106 test set: 73*106 here, I need use GA+GP to do variable selection when building the model. In R, there are not GA package like in matlab

Hi, I want to improve the way CGP sinks the incoming values of a PHI node towards memory accesses. Improving it means a lot to some of our key benchmarks, and I believe can benefit many general cases as well. CGP's OptimizeMemoryInst function handles PHI nodes by running AddressingModeMatcher on all incoming values to see whether they reach consensus on the addressing mode. It does a

On Jun 24, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > The inliner, GVN, and the loop passes run together, *iteratively*. They are neither before or after one another. And this is important as it allows iterative simplification in the inliner. It is one of the most critical optimizations for C++ code that LLVM does. > > We can't sink all of the loop

On Jun 24, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > I agree. The vectorizer is a *lowering* pass, and much like LSR and it loses information. A few months ago some of us talked about this and came up with a general draft for the ideal pass ordering. > > Where? On the

Now that 2.5 is about to branch, I'd like to bring up one of Scott's favorite topics: certain optimizers widen or narrow arithmetic, without regard for whether the type is legal for the target. In his specific case, instcombine is turning an i32 multiply into an i64 multiply in order to eliminate a cast. This does simplify/reduce the number of IR operations, but an i64 multiply

Hi, we are in migration progress from Communigate Pro 5.0.x to Dovecot 2.0.15 with mdbox. We still migrated about 25.000 IMAP accounts from CGP to Dovecot. Also there were still added about 2000 new POP3 Accounts on Dovecot. Now we must migrate about 10.000 POP3 accounts from CGP to Dovecot. At the beginning of our migration we didn't set the "pop3_reuse_xuidl" configuration

Have you read http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMBackend.html and http://llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html ? http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMBackend.html#instruction-selector describes how to define a store instruction. -Eli On 7/6/2017 6:51 PM, hameeza ahmed via llvm-dev wrote: > Please correct me i m stuck at this point. > > On Jul 6, 2017 5:18 PM, "hameeza ahmed"

> we lower llvm.objectsize later than we should Is there a well-accepted best (or even just better) place to lower objectsize? I ask because I sorta fear that these kinds of problems will become more pronounced as llvm.is.constant, which is also lowered in CGP, gains popularity. (To be clear, I think it totally makes sense to lower is.constant and objectsize in the same place. I'm just