- User Since
- Sep 8 2016, 7:12 AM (303 w, 3 d)
Dec 5 2017
Nov 22 2017
Ping. Nearly there!
Nov 7 2017
I do not have commit access.
Nov 2 2017
Oct 4 2017
I've added Eli's proof to it, not sure exactly how to present it.
Oct 2 2017
I have been fiddling with Alive, but it has been crashing on me (even on simple proofs). I guessed this was a temporary issue, but after 2 weeks it is still not working with "Oops, it seems that this tool encountered an issue."
The last version of the expression I got was
Sep 1 2017
Ping. I understand people might be busy with 5.0
Aug 14 2017
Just prodding for an update, in case the emails fell through.
Jul 31 2017
Added an explanation of what's being done.
Because I was the one writing it, it makes sense to me. Is it clear enough for others?
Jul 25 2017
Keep track of BasicBlocks that have been processed and avoid doing PRE on blocks that haven't been operated on.
Jul 19 2017
Thanks for the suggestion. This was fun!
Jul 18 2017
A-ha, I see your point. Apologies for the confusion, but as I mentioned before, it was my hack on GVN.
Added the test you asked me about, slightly modified. I wanted to make sure that the ComputeKnownBits picked the correct bitwidth. The sample test you mentioned had the two inputs with the same bit width, so I just added two more. I can put it back to "3" if you prefer.
Jul 17 2017
I set a breakpoint in the R->moveBefore(I) which I added and this was the block in question:
Use TrailBitsKnown instead.
Jul 14 2017
Hm, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do next - do I wait for someone with commit rights to put this in?
Jul 12 2017
Ping - maybe before the 5.0 branch?
Jun 28 2017
Prodding the review, in case the emails regarding this slipped through.
Jun 20 2017
Update diff following Craig's comment.
Jun 12 2017
New new patch addresses all of Craig's comments.
Updated the diff with the suggestions. I feel a bit silly for having made the first patch with that for-loop, when I used equivalent bit-ops further up the function.
Jun 8 2017
Sep 8 2016
I stumbled onto this as I was going through the mailing list.
We (Imagination) have a metadata solution in place and while we didn't have any problems describing the memory scopes all the way through to our codegen (the metadata didn't get lost as far as we can tell), the solution presented here does look more promising. We'd be interested in seeing this mainstreamed.