similar to: sequentially process a list

=== PROBLEM === (See this bug https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26445) IR contains code for loading a float from float * and storing it to a float * address. After canonicalization of load in InstCombine [1], new bitcasts are added to the IR (see bottom of the email for code samples). This prevents select speculation in SROA to work. Also after SROA we have bitcasts from int32 to float.

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > How do it interact with the "typeless pointers" work? > Right - the goal of the typeless pointer work is to fix all these bugs related to "didn't look through bitcasts" in optimizations. Sometimes that's going to mean more work (because the code

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Ehsan Amiri <ehsanamiri at gmail.com> wrote: > David, > > Could you give us an update on the status of typeless pointer work? How > much work is left and when you think it might be ready? > It's a bit of an onion peel, really - since it will eventually involve generalizing/fixing every optimization that's currently leaning on typed

Back to the discussion on the RFC, I still see some advantage in following the proposed solution. I see two paths forward: 1- Change canonical form, possibly lower memcpy to non-integer load and store in InstCombine. Then teach the backends to convert that to integer load and store if that is more profitable. Notice that we are talking about loads that have no use other than store. So it is a

I don't really mind, but the intermediate stage will not be very nice: that a lot of code / tests that needs to be written with bitcast, and all of that while they are deemed to disappear. The added value isn't clear to me considering the added work. I'm not sure it wouldn't add more work for all the cleanup required by the "typeless pointer", but I'm not sure

I don't know enough about the tradeoff for 1, but 2 seems like a bandaid for something that is not a correctness issue neither a regression. I'm not sure it justifies "bandaid patches" while there is a clear path forward, i.e. typeless pointers, unless there is an acknowledgement that typeless pointers won't be there before a couple of years. -- Mehdi > On Mar 22, 2016,

I feel very strongly that blocking work on making optimization bitcast-ignorant on the typeless pointer work would be a major mistake. Unless we expected the typeless pointer work to be concluded within the near term (say 3-6 months maximum), we should not block any development which would be accepted in the typeless pointer work wasn't planned. In my view, this is one of the largest

This is roughly what I wrote... > On Mar 22, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > I feel very strongly that blocking work on making optimization bitcast-ignorant on the typeless pointer work would be a major mistake. Unless we expected the typeless pointer work to be concluded within the near term (say 3-6 months maximum), we should not block

But not what David was stating, unless I misread? I was specifically responding to David's wording: "If we're talking about making an optimization able to ignore the bitcast instructions - yes, that work is unnecessary & perhaps questionable given the typeless pointer work. Not outright off limits, but the same time might be better invested in moving typeless pointers

I'd phrase this differently: being pointer-bitcast agnostic is a step towards support typeless pointers. :) We can either become bitcast agnostic all in one big change or incrementally. Personally, I'd prefer the later since it reduces the risk associated with enabling typeless pointers in the end. Philip On 03/22/2016 12:16 PM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev wrote: > I don't know

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > Sorry I should have been more clear (writing to many email in parallel) > > You're right. I was adding a +1 to you here. > > Especially I wrote "unless there is an acknowledgement that typeless > pointers won't be there before a couple of years" with the PassManager in >

Ultimately everything is going to be made to not rely on the types of pointers - that's nearly equivalent to bitcast-ignorant (the difference being that the presence of an extra instruction (the bitcast) might trip up some optimizations - but the presence of the /type/ information implied by the bitcast should not trip up or be necessary for optimizations (two sides of the same coin)) If

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com>, "David Blaikie" > <dblaikie at gmail.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, uweigand at de.ibm.com, "Tom > Stellard" <thomas.stellard at

I have a vector of values -1, 0, 1, say a <- c(0, 1, 0, 1, 1, -1, -1, -1, 0, -1, -1) I want to create a vector of the cumulative sum of this, but I need to set a maximum and minimum value for the cumsum, for example: max_value <- 2 min_value <- -2 the expected result would be (0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 0, -1, -1, -2, -2) The only way I managed to do It, was res <-

Sorry I should have been more clear (writing to many email in parallel) You're right. I was adding a +1 to you here. Especially I wrote "unless there is an acknowledgement that typeless pointers won't be there before a couple of years" with the PassManager in mind, and I was expecting from David some good indication of a timeframe for the typeless pointers. If the typeless

Thanks. *Phillip, *As Hal said I do not think (1) is a very large item. Please let me know if I am mistaken. *David *I think (1) is more inline with typeless pointer work than (2). Contributing to typeless pointer work will be great, but given its unknown time frame we cannot stop fixing existing problems. Of course, we should follow an approach consistent with the long-term solution. On Tue,

input: > values [1] 0.854400 1.648465 1.829830 1.874704 7.670915 7.673585 7.722619 > thresholds [1] 1 3 5 7 9 expected output: [1] 1 4 4 4 7 That is, need a vector of indexes of the maximum value below the threshold. e.g. First element is "1", because value[1] is the largest below threshold "1". Second element is "4", because value[4] is the

I think that there is a very simple way to encode audio files with lossless compression around 35%. (the compression may be improved if we can lose some lsb bits around 30% for 2 and 25% for 3) Other lossless audio encoder I've seen reach at maximum a compression of 48% (*.flac, *.ape) So the questions are: 1- Is someone interested in another encoder? 2- If true n.1 may it be included in ogg

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 04:25:28PM +0000, Jones Syue ??? wrote: >Hello Ivan, > >'FastCopy' has an option to revise max I/O size and works for SMB :) >it is a tool for file transferring and could be installed to win10, >download here: https://fastcopy.jp/ > >This is an example for writing, a job would write a file named '1GB.img' >from a local disk

Hi. Does anyone know whether the following error is a result of a bug or a feature? I can eliminate the error by making ML=F, but I would like to see the values of the cut-points and their variance. tmp.vec<-c(0, 0, 0 , 0 ,0 , 1, 0, 2, 0 , 0, 5 ,5 ,3 ,1, 0 , 1, 5, 10, 27, 20, 9, 0, 1, 1, 12, 29, 57, 34, 0, 0, 1, 2, 11, 31, 32) tmp.mat<-matrix(tmp.vec, nrow=7)