- User Since
- Jan 25 2017, 1:38 AM (191 w, 2 d)
Thank you for review.
Mon, Sep 21
Tue, Sep 15
Sun, Sep 6
Aug 21 2020
Aug 18 2020
Aug 14 2020
Aug 13 2020
Aug 12 2020
I've updated the patch, please take a look.
Aug 4 2020
Jul 31 2020
Please fix the bug Philip mentioned and I think we are ready to land it.
Jul 28 2020
Jul 17 2020
Jul 16 2020
Hi Denis, after you re-write the patch in this way, I guess we can do it clearly and simply in terms of reading.
Jul 7 2020
As I understand a lot of things here are done to workout the case that one catch block can correspond to different invoke instructions. Can you please add the test examine this case?
could you please explain the case due to you need to return back in collectGCRegs implementation?
I need an answer to the question about test and at least update doc for rewriteStatepoint.
A pretty close to be done.
Jul 5 2020
Jun 25 2020
Jun 22 2020
Jun 10 2020
Jun 4 2020
May 20 2020
May 12 2020
You are right, CFG is not modified. Thank you for the change.
May 6 2020
Apr 30 2020
to me the patch seems to be NFC.
Apr 29 2020
Apr 28 2020
Apr 23 2020
LGTM after fixing the doc.
Doc for function should probably explicitly mention that zero value means using default option value.
Apr 22 2020
Handled Fedor's comments. Thank you for review.
Apr 15 2020
I'm not sure how correct this fix is but I verified that it fixes my original problem.
Apr 14 2020
it is not NFC as you fix verifier. Split this patch into two parts or remove NFC.
Thanks @skatkov. The test compiles for me, and the part that this patch introduces looks correct, but there seems to be a problem with how %tmp8 is handled - as a live-out first-order-recurrence which fold-tail does not handle (the compare it introduces is not used by anyone). To reproduce the bug w/o this patch, transform the loop iv %tmp9 to start at 0 and exit the loop when equal to 4 (instead of starting at 1 and exiting at 5), and add 1 to %tmp8. Would be good to open a PR.
Continuing to investigate.
Apr 13 2020
Hello @Ayal, unfortunately this patch causes the functional regression.
For the test below, vectorizer decided to vectorize inner loop by 32 while it has only a couple of iteration and it causes a miscompile.
Please fix it quickly or revert the patch.
Apr 9 2020
This is the same patch as https://reviews.llvm.org/D77371, the fix will uploaded over to be able to see the difference.
Patch with a fix: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77797
Apr 8 2020
return back option in a test
Handled comments before landing.
ok, I could not come up with something better, we can revisit at later.
Apr 7 2020
From what I see it should work. The only thing worries me is that this isCorrectType seems to be not incorporated into solution but some side hack to solve the problem.
Unfortunately at this moment I do not have a better suggestion :(
Changes according to review.
Apr 6 2020
Apr 3 2020
Apr 2 2020
Apr 1 2020
in favor of https://reviews.llvm.org/D77130
Philip, thank you for your suggestion.