similar to: RfW 2.3.1: regular expressions to detect pairs of identical word-final character sequences

Hi, I'm using LLVM 2.7 right now, and I found "opt -std-compile-opts" has missed some opportunities for optimization: define void @spa.main() readonly { entry: %tmp = load i32* @dst-ip ; <i32> [#uses=3] %tmp1 = and i32 %tmp, -16777216 ; <i32> [#uses=1] %tmp2 = icmp eq i32 %tmp1, 167772160 ; <i1> [#uses=2]

Hi, I want to clone a given function, and add an argument to it. I then want to add a call to that new function. I have a callInstruction CI, which I want to transform to call this new function, and to take a new argument. The code I added was as follows CI->getCalledFunction()->dump(); Function* DirectF = CloneFunction(CI->getCalledFunction());

Hi Danny, Thanks for that :) However I've just updated the prototype patch to NewGVN and it didn't need any API changes - all I rely on is GVNExpression. Hongbin, I wanted to explain a little about what GVNSink can currently do, what it was designed for and hopefully how to make it handle your testcase. *Background* Common code sinking is more difficult to efficently do than one might

Wojciech, I've just commited a patch to llvm-gcc 4.2, which moves openmp lowering stuff to be run little bit earlier, so llvm-convert will catch its result. It looks now gcc atomic & sync builtins should be introduced to llvm as a remaining ingredient. Example program from Diego's paper now compiles to: @.str = internal constant [10 x i8] c"sum = %d\0A\00" ;

It's basically ready to commit; the reviewers were fairly happy with it. It needs rebasing on top of NewGVN and any bugs that shakes out fixed, but that's about it. I want to get around to it soon-ish, but I've wanted that for a while! On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 at 16:50, Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi James, > > I have an ad-hoc solution in mind to solve

From POSIXct to numeric and back with time zone I am running regressions on data which has time series with different time resolution. Some data has hourly resolution, while most has either daily or weekly resolution. Aggregation is used to make the hourly data daily, while liner interpolation is used to find daily data from the weekly time series. This data manipulation requires some careful

The following piece of IR is a fixed point for opt -std-compile-opts/-O3: --- target datalayout = "e-p:64:64:64-S128-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:64:64-f16:16:16-f32:32:32-f64:64:64-f128:128:128-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-s0:64:64-f80:128:128-n8:16:32:64" target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" ; Function Attrs: nounwind readonly define i32 @get32Bits(i8*

Hello R experts, I'd like to studentize a matrix (tmp1) by column using apply() function and skip some specific values such as zeros in the example below to tmp2 but not tmp3. I used the script below and only can get a matrix tmp3. Could you please help me to studentize the matrix (tmp1) without changing the zeros and generate a new matrix tmp2? Thanks, Joshua tmp1 [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4]

I am testing vectorization on the following test case: float x[1024], y[1024]; void myloop1() { for (long int k = 0; k < 512; k++) { x[2*k] = x[2*k]+y[k]; } } Vectorization failed due to "unsafe dependent memory operation". I traced the LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp and found the reason is the NoWrapFlag for SCEVAddRecExpr is not set and consequently the

This is the right answer for C's alloca. The question probably referred to LLVM IR's alloca, however. On Aug 13, 2008, at 11:07 AMPDT, Mike Stump wrote: > On Aug 13, 2008, at 10:49 AM, John Criswell wrote: >> Is it legal to have an alloca in a basic block other than a >> function's entry block? > > How else could you generate code for: > > #include

[+Arnold] > On Jun 10, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > [+CC Andy] > >> Can anyone familiar with ScalarRevolution tell me whether this is an >> expected behavior or a bug? > > Assuming you're talking about 2*k, this is a bug. ScalarEvolution > should be able to prove that {0,+,4} is <nsw> and

On 16 February 2010 20:49, Trevor Harmon <Trevor.W.Harmon at nasa.gov> wrote: > We were discussing that a few days ago: > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-February/029245.html Hi Trevor, On a similar question, I'd want to see what line is being compiled to which instructions. Is it possible to print the before the instructions as comment? For example:

What? Yet another EH proposal?! This one is different from the others in that I'm planning to start implementing this shortly. But I want your feedback! I've all ready gotten a lot of feedback from Chris, John, Jim, Eric, and many others. Now is your turn! Please read this proposal and send me your comments, suggestions, and concerns. -bw

Some of the optimizations that the first DAG combine performs is counter productive for our 8-bit target. For example in: // I dropped the types because they are irrelevant. // Excuse me for changing the syntax... store %tmp1, %var %tmp2 = load %var %tmp4 = add %tmp3, %tmp2 Since load is the only user of var and since var has just be stored to, it assumes that %tmp1 is alive and it goes ahead

I can't think of any workaround? this optimization eliminates so much information that if we want to retrieve back, it will take a lot of processing and may not necessarily be able to retrieve the lost information for all cases. Besides, why does the generic part of llvm have to force an optimization that is counter productive to some targets? If there are other phases that do the same

Hey again) Now I have next code: ; ModuleID = 'sample.lz' @.str1 = internal global [8 x i8] c" world!\00" ; <[8 x i8]*> [#uses=1] @.str2 = internal global [8 x i8] c"hello, \00" ; <[8 x i8]*> [#uses=1] @.str7 = internal global [21 x i8] c"welcome to out hall!\00" ; <[21 x i8]*> [#uses=1] declare i32 @puts(i8*)

In LegalizeDAG.cpp, truncating stores are custom-lowered in line 1314-1317: 1314 case TargetLowering::Custom: 1315 ReplaceNode(SDValue(Node, 0), 1316 TLI.LowerOperation(SDValue(Node, 0), DAG)); 1317 break; Is there a reason it doesn't check whether the SDValue returned from TargetLowering::LowerOperation is null before it replaces the

Hi, I have two problems regarding the llvm.stackrestore intrinsic. I'm running on 3.0, but a quick test on trunk also showed the same behavior. First problem: --------------- I have code like: tmp1 = call llvm.stacksave() tmp2 = alloca [do some stuff with tmp2] call llvm.stackrestore(tmp1) [some other stuff] tmp3 = call llvm.stacksave() tmp4 = alloca [do some stuff

Dan Gohman wrote: > There certainly are wishlist items for TableGen and TableGen-based > instruction descriptions, though I don't know of an official list. > Offhand, > a few things that come to mind are the ability to handle nodes with > multiple results, Is there an official workaround, BTW? - Volodya

The code sequence: > store %tmp1, var > > tmp4 = add %tmp3 , %tmp1 > can happen even if you eliminate the specific dag combine in question. The real solution lies elsewhere. To me, this seems more like a register allocation problem. Evan On Mar 22, 2009, at 9:39 PM, Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com wrote: > I can't think of any workaround? this optimization eliminates