machinelicm_clangformat_modv1.cpp ? I think you uploaded wrong patch.
Fri, Aug 23
Thu, Aug 22
LGTM with minor comments regarding testcase. Thanks.
Wed, Aug 21
Looks like you did not commit the version (Diff 190782) that was accepted!
Tue, Aug 20
Keep the default behavior, add option to disable.
Also add a testcase.
Use 'extract' instead of 'split'.
Mon, Aug 19
Add missing '-'.
Agree, how about this?
Fri, Aug 16
Update the MIR test using script.
Gave it a try on SPEC2017 with -O3 -mcpu=native -mllvm --ppc-enable-pipeliner on P9,
500.perlbench_r, 525.x264_r , 531.deepsjeng_r, 557.xz_r failed with new cg, pass with old cg.
Thu, Aug 15
Gave it a try on test-suite, with -O3 -mcpu=pwr9 --ppc-enable-pipeliner
@arsenm Is this MIR test OK?
Using MIR test instead.
@qcolombet Can you have a quick look at the testcase to see whether this is OK? Thanks.
Rebased to latest ToT.
arc command mistake.
Fix long line and move the patterns.
Wed, Aug 14
Added patterns for other type and rebased to pick up new tests.
@lkail Can you please update the summary to describe more details about why we might have such redundant copies after TailDup.
I know we have those in comments, it would be great if we can summarize those into summary, so that reviewers don't have to look into every single comments. Thanks.
Tue, Aug 13
To summarize, without complex uses and defs(thus we don't need to do complex replace-uses-with after RA).
Fix comments and add a testcase.
If I implement it in machine-cp, I might write some like isMoveImmediate and invoke target hook like TII->FoldImmediate. However currently only PowerPC implements specific TII->FoldImmediate. Taking above into account, this issues seems not general enough to implement in machine-cp.
Mon, Aug 12
Have you considered extend MachineCopyPropagation to cover this? Looks like to me that this is a 'backward' COPY propagation.
Fri, Aug 9
@jmolly Looks like you messed up the patch again? I can't see changes in CMakeList.txt in latest diff now, and after adding it, I am seeing the compile time error again.
Thanks for the patch! My only concern is with all the checks in the test case. Checking for the exact code sequence can be very sensitive to other changes in the compiler that are unrelated to this patch.
Thu, Aug 8
Fri, Aug 2
Thanks @echristo !
Yes, good job! All the existing lit test passed.
Haven't done run time verification, but there are a few compile time assertion & abort when compiling test-suites,
I have reduced some of them and committed in https://reviews.llvm.org/rL367732 for your further investigation.
Thu, Aug 1
How do you build and test? I can't config & build it with clang.
Wed, Jul 31
Tue, Jul 30
LGTM. Thanks for exploiting.
Mon, Jul 29
Why we need a new pass to do this simple lowering?
Why can't we do it similar to InitLibcalls and change the suffixes for subtarget using setLibcallName?
Mostly good to me.
Jul 22 2019
LGTM, sorry for late response.