Looks good. Just a small nit about the test.
- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
Advanced Search
Today
Wed, Mar 24
Feb 16 2021
Hi, @arichardson! What is the status for this patch?
Feb 12 2021
Feb 4 2021
Jan 5 2021
In D90020#2477208, @sdesmalen wrote:In D90020#2455122, @dstenb wrote:I'm sorry for chiming in so late here! I have a comment about the prependOffsetExpression target hook.
Thanks for the suggestion, you made a good point that this interface was error prone when new flags are added in the future. I've updated the patch and added the virtual interface getOffsetOpcodes alongside prependOffsetExpression (made non-virtual and now handles the Deref, Stack/Entry Value). Let me know if this is how you imagined it.
Dec 15 2020
I'm sorry for chiming in so late here! I have a comment about the prependOffsetExpression target hook.
Dec 10 2020
In D76146#2438388, @mib wrote:Hi @dstenb, any update on this ? I tried to look for DW_OP_LLVM_convert_generic in the codebase but couldn't find any occurence ... Thanks.
Dec 8 2020
Thanks!
Dec 7 2020
As both the emission of the IMPLICIT_DEF instructions in SelectionDAG, and the resolving of those instructions in "Process Implicit Definitions", is target independent code, I think it would be sufficient with only keeping one of these test cases, but I would be fine with landed this with all five.
Dec 2 2020
I think it would be preferable if we could do this in a target independent place, so that downstream targets, and upstream targets that do not yet support call sites, do not have to care about this.
Nov 26 2020
What is the status of the expensive check failure? It has been present for five days now. Should we revert this patch until that is resolved?
Nov 25 2020
In D91153#2415351, @mkazantsev wrote:Please move the test out of MIPS-specific into general test directory if it's possible. Otherwise, LGTM.
Use X86 reproducer instead.
Nov 19 2020
Nov 18 2020
I took the liberty to add some review comments whilst familiarizing myself with the code.
In D91153#2393018, @TaWeiTu wrote:In D91153#2385479, @dstenb wrote:I'm not very familiar with the IndVars pass, so I have not idea if this is the correct way to solve this.
This seems correct to me, but I'm not familiar with IndVar either, so maybe someone else should take a look.
However, I think it would be better if we can return false in this case (i.e. if all PHI nodes created in rewriteLoopExitValues are dead).
But I don't know whether there's some edge case that forces us to return true here.
Nov 12 2020
Thanks! This looks good to me.
Nov 10 2020
I'm not very familiar with the IndVars pass, so I have not idea if this is the correct way to solve this.
Nov 5 2020
In D89613#2376068, @vtjnash wrote:The .cfi_startproc directive is part of the unwind information (eh_frame), and is not debug info, so that seems like a possible bugfix even? I'd expect that observation to be consistent with the goal of this PR, though I didn't see specifically where that pass was being affected in a cursory glance back through the PR.
Oct 29 2020
Oct 22 2020
Oct 20 2020
In D53758#2336719, @dexonsmith wrote:I totally lost track of this :/.
The patch looks correct, thanks very much for tracking this down. This LGTM if you add an explanation to the testcase of exactly what it’s testing (I worry it’s not obvious for someone trying to update the test later).
Rebase, and update comment in test case.
Oct 9 2020
This seems to have broken the expensive-checks build bots:
Oct 7 2020
If I understand this correctly, the new {EntryValue, EntryExpr} operands do, if EntryExpr is not undef, specify a location that is identical to the dbg.value's current {Value, Expr} operands, but with DW_OP_LLVM_entry_value implicitly being applied to EntryValue before EntryExpr. Is that correct?
Oct 6 2020
Some minor code style comments while I look into this.
Sep 29 2020
I added a comment about eliminateTrunc to the commit message. I'll see if I can create a reproducer for that, and if so, I'll upload a revision for that.
Sep 24 2020
I'm equally fine with doing the Implicit flag change here, or for someone to do it in a separate patch.
Sep 23 2020
Sep 22 2020
Sorry for a piecemeal review from my part!
Sep 14 2020
Thanks for the review!
Sep 10 2020
Just some drive-by nits while familiarizing myself with this patch series.
Continue using a bool return instead of a tri-state.
Sep 9 2020
Sep 8 2020
Thanks, and sorry for overlooking the comments!
I will go through this more deeply, but just an initial comment is that I think it may be worth considering splitting it into two patches, in order to make it easier to review:
Sep 3 2020
Address review comments.
LGTM!
Sep 2 2020
Thanks for the review!
Sep 1 2020
Ping.
Aug 24 2020
Gentle ping. I was not sure which reviews to add to this one, since the code has mostly remained unchanged since its original introduction in 2004, except for it being affected by wider changes.
Aug 20 2020
I'll land this with a comment added to the test case in the meanwhile.
Aug 19 2020
Aug 18 2020
In D86085#2221693, @asbirlea wrote:If you'd be able to add reproducers in follow up patch, that would be great.
Slight refactoring of the existing test case, and add test cases for the other two returns.