bjope wrote:
> > Here is another thing that I noticed after this patch:
> > https://godbolt.org/z/1P7bnKGjh
> > So early instcombine is eliminating an `and` operation (in the foo
> > example), resulting in simplifycfg not being able to collapse the control
> > flow any longer.
>
> I don't thi
bjope wrote:
Here is another thing that I noticed after this patch:
https://godbolt.org/z/1P7bnKGjh
So early instcombine is eliminating an `and` operation (in the foo example),
resulting in simplifycfg not being able to collapse the control flow any longer.
Maybe I should file a separate issu
joanahalili wrote:
heads-up, we are seeing some performance regressions due to this patch 8about
6-7%! We will add more details about this soon.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/73662
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
ht
nikic wrote:
@eddyz87 Right, this is exactly the change I have been working on, see
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75311. Unfortunately, it doesn't
actually fix the BPF case, because that one involves a loop, and LVI is
currently terrible at handling those. (Basically, even though t
yonghong-song wrote:
> @yonghong-song I think it may be possible to improve CVP to handle this
> better, in which case we won't need BPF workarounds. I'll look into it.
@nikic and @bjope. Indeed, https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75039
didn't resolve the issue and the generated bpf cod
bjope wrote:
> @bjope It looks like the InstCombine changes enable IndVars to perform LFTR,
> which is unprofitable in this case. Though the `umax(1)` call is actually
> completely unnecessary here, but SCEV doesn't realize it. I've put up #75039
> to fix that. Does that improve things for you
nikic wrote:
@yonghong-song I think it may be possible to improve CVP to handle this better,
in which case we won't need BPF workarounds. I'll look into it.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/73662
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists
yonghong-song wrote:
Hi, @nikic,
This patch caused a bpf verifier regression with one of bpf selftests. The
details can be found in kernel bpf mailing list.
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/0ff5f011-7524-4550-89eb-bb2c89f69...@linux.dev/
Note that bpf verification failure here does not mean that
nikic wrote:
Okay, it looks like the mpeg2decode regression is indeed fixed. I think the
only somewhat significant regression left is `Shootout-C++-ary2`, but in my IR
diffs I don't see any regression there (only improvements with a bunch of
conditions being optimized away).
https://github.co
https://github.com/nikic edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/73662
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
nikic wrote:
I've put up https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/74467 to use disjoint in
SCEV.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/73662
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/c
github-actions[bot] wrote:
:warning: C/C++ code formatter, clang-format found issues in your code.
:warning:
You can test this locally with the following command:
``bash
git-clang-format --diff f368e6424fbfb7fdea4b9d9a2e44f2f7e188c133
3575ad5701a852dd8b79d144ea17a729cfb4d94c --
nikic wrote:
> Could you please rebase this patch on #74246 and add a test for #74242?
Done. The new test is `@div_by_zero_or_one_from_dom_cond`.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/73662
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
h
dtcxzyw wrote:
My CI detected some significant regressions caused by this patch:
https://github.com/dtcxzyw/llvm-ci/pull/839#issuecomment-1836976355
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/73662
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://github.com/dtcxzyw approved this pull request.
The implementation looks good to me. Waiting for the result of my CI.
https://github.com/dtcxzyw/llvm-ci/actions/runs/7066692655
@goldsteinn Any comments?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/73662
nikic wrote:
> Just realized that this doesn't cover uses of isKnownNonNegative() in
> InstCombine yet, as it currently doesn't go through SimplifyQuery. I'll see
> about migrating those APIs tomorrow.
This is done now, but introduced an additional regression in idioms.ll.
https://github.com/
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-analysis
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Nikita Popov (nikic)
Changes
This adds support for using dominating conditions in computeKnownBits() when
called from InstCombine. The implementation uses a DomConditionCache, which
stores which branches
https://github.com/nikic created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/73662
This adds support for using dominating conditions in computeKnownBits() when
called from InstCombine. The implementation uses a DomConditionCache, which
stores which branches may provide information that is relevan
18 matches
Mail list logo
