similar to: [canonicalization] GEP 0, 0

2016-12-23 17:22 GMT+01:00 Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org>: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Piotr Padlewski via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > I started digging into MemDep to enhance devirtualization and I found out > > that it doesn't handle invariant.group if it will find GEP 0, 0. > > If I

Define soon? My guess is 1 year or less. (I've already seen patches to start converting most remaining memdep uses, like memcpy opt, licm, etc) On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Piotr Padlewski via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > 2016-12-23 17:22 GMT+01:00 Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org>: > >> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Piotr

On Dec 23, 2016 19:47, "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: Define soon? My guess is 1 year or less. (I've already seen patches to start converting most remaining memdep uses, like memcpy opt, licm, etc) That's good. Anyway I already have a patch that is doing invariant group dependence across BBs, so I guess it make sense to push it upstream to push the bar

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Piotr Padlewski via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I started digging into MemDep to enhance devirtualization and I found out > that it doesn't handle invariant.group if it will find GEP 0, 0. > If I understand it correctly getelementptr with zeros is just bitcast. Is > there any good reason why it is not

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Piotr Padlewski <piotr.padlewski at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 23, 2016 19:47, "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > Define soon? > My guess is 1 year or less. > (I've already seen patches to start converting most remaining memdep uses, > like memcpy opt, licm, etc) > > > That's good.

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Piotr Padlewski > <piotr.padlewski at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 23, 2016 19:47, "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > > Define soon? > > My guess is 1 year or less.

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Piotr Padlewski via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > 2016-12-23 22:17 GMT+01:00 David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com>: > >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 1:01 PM,

2016-12-23 22:17 GMT+01:00 David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com>: > > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Piotr Padlewski >> <piotr.padlewski at gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Dec 23, 2016 19:47, "Daniel

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 3:30 PM Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Piotr Padlewski via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > 2016-12-23 22:17 GMT+01:00 David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com>: > > > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 3:30 PM Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Piotr Padlewski via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> 2016-12-23 22:17 GMT+01:00 David

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 10:17 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 3:30 PM Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Piotr Padlewski via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: 2016-12-23

Hey folks , I was thinking of making some small, optional-for-callers only changes to the memdep API, and before I did it, thought i'd post here and make sure nobody thought it was egregiously stupid. There are two related issues i'm trying to solve, both of which occur in uses like GVN, where we are trying to prove equivalence between a load/store/call with some other load/store/call:

2016-12-24 9:39 GMT+01:00 Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 10:17 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> > wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 3:30 PM Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >

BTW are we planning to also remove gep 0 after we would have typeless pointers? I saw the David's presentation year ago but I am not sure if it was mentioned. If it would be removed, then does it mean that SROA would still need some new code to handle it (assuming it doesn't handle bitcasts right now) Here is the patch solving my issue https://reviews.llvm.org/D28126 2016-12-25 13:40

I decided to pump some IR through the optimizers and was surprised to find that we don't choose to canonicalize any of the following functions to the other even though they are all roughly the same. define i32 @f1(i32 %x, i32 %m) #0 { entry: %and = and i32 %m, 32896 %tobool = icmp ne i32 %and, 0 %cond = select i1 %tobool, i32 8, i32 0 %shr = lshr i32 %x, %cond ret i32 %shr } ;

Chris Lattner schrieb: > > On Aug 20, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Marc Brünink wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I do have a FunctionPass that does change the code. This FunctionPass >> requires another FunctionPass which performs all the necessary analyses. >> This AnalysisPass again requires MemoryDependenceAnalysis. >> >> The problem is, that I would like

On Aug 21, 2009, at 3:04 AM, Marc Brünink wrote: >> This isn't really possible. The issue is that MemDep doesn't just >> "analyze your function". It is designed to be as lazy as possible, >> which means that it only does analysis when a query is performed. >> This >> means that if you have MemDep->Pass1->Pass2 and Pass2 uses MemDep

Chris Lattner schrieb: > On Aug 21, 2009, at 3:04 AM, Marc Brünink wrote: >>> This isn't really possible. The issue is that MemDep doesn't just >>> "analyze your function". It is designed to be as lazy as possible, >>> which means that it only does analysis when a query is performed. This >>> means that if you have

On Aug 20, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Marc Brünink wrote: > Hi, > > I do have a FunctionPass that does change the code. This FunctionPass > requires another FunctionPass which performs all the necessary > analyses. > This AnalysisPass again requires MemoryDependenceAnalysis. > > The problem is, that I would like MemoryDependenceAnalysis to run on > the > unaltered

Hi, MemDep caches results for local queries and provides means to invalidate them by keeping reverse maps. Unfortunately, it also caches results that represent non-local dependencies, for which there are no reverse map entries, and thus those entries can not be invalidated. This is a problem when an optimization turns a non-local dependency into a local one.