ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> @ChuanqiXu9 is this one ready to be merged?
Yes, I believe this is ready to be merged.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114197
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/
Author: Jake Egan
Date: 2024-11-12T03:44:08-05:00
New Revision: 16d9aa346bab9afbaceb45a836f4721c24d012b2
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/16d9aa346bab9afbaceb45a836f4721c24d012b2
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/16d9aa346bab9afbaceb45a836f4721c24d012b2.diff
LOG
nikic wrote:
Yeah, I don't think we should backport this.
A backportable variant of this fix would be to disable the phi handling
entirely.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114786
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@list
nikic wrote:
I'd still prefer not to backport this. We're changing many targets to use
softPromoteHalfType in LLVM 20 (hopefully all if someone gets around to it...),
with the ABI changes that implies. I don't think it makes sense to backport
this just for loongarch, and I also don't want to b
https://github.com/llvmbot milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115892
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/hvdijk updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114786
>From fb70629e196c516ebd5083f8624ba614f746ef67 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: serge-sans-paille
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2024 09:14:35 +
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] =?UTF-8?q?[llvm]=20Fix=20=5F=5Fbuiltin=5Fobject=5Fsiz?=
=
https://github.com/h-vetinari commented:
I did a first pass, and this looks like great work to me overall (though note
that I'm not necessarily the most qualified to judge there). But from what I
can see this will greatly improve a couple of existing pain points.
There's a bunch of places tha
@@ -290,11 +290,15 @@ static void processVSRuntimeLibrary(const ToolChain &TC,
const ArgList &Args,
ArgStringList &CmdArgs) {
assert(TC.getTriple().isKnownWindowsMSVCEnvironment() &&
"can only add VS runtime library on Windows!");
@@ -0,0 +1,198 @@
+
+
+# Fortran Runtime (flang-rt)
+
+Flang-rt is the runtime library for code emitted by the Flang compiler
+(https://flang.llvm.org).
+
+
+## Getting Started
+
+There are two build modes for the flang-rt. The bootstrap build, also
+called the in-tree build, and
https://github.com/h-vetinari edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/110217
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -89,6 +91,9 @@ function(llvm_ExternalProject_Add name source_dir)
if(NOT ARG_TOOLCHAIN_TOOLS)
set(ARG_TOOLCHAIN_TOOLS clang)
+if (ARG_ENABLE_FORTRAN)
+ list(APPEND ARG_TOOLCHAIN_TOOLS flang-new)
h-vetinari wrote:
```suggestion
list(APP
@@ -0,0 +1,210 @@
+#===-- CMakeLists.txt
--===#
+#
+# Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions.
+# See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-
@@ -179,19 +179,18 @@ like this:
```
$ flang -v -o example example.o
-"/usr/bin/ld" [...] example.o [...] "-lFortranRuntime" "-lFortranDecimal" [...]
+"/usr/bin/ld" [...] example.o [...] "-lflang_rt" [...]
```
The automatically added libraries are:
-* `FortranRuntime`: P
shiltian wrote:
Are we still releasing 19?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115944
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
ellishg wrote:
> Hit an assertion in `ignoreOp` when testing the refactored code.
>
> ```
> Assertion failed: (OpIdx < I->getNumOperands() && "Invalid operand index"),
> function ignoreOp, file GlobalMergeFunctions.cpp, line 129.
> Stop reason: hit program assert
> expr I->dump()
> %6 = tail
https://github.com/gbMattN updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95387
>From 8099113d68bd7c47c29f635bb10a048ddb99833b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matthew Nagy
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:12:31 +
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [TySan] Fixed false positive when accessing global
object's m
hvdijk wrote:
Also cc @serge-sans-paille for the chance to comment since this now includes
changes of mine and is no longer a straightforward backport.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114786
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-c
https://github.com/llvmbot created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115944
Backport eccdb2489483ca58d2cb35bc38967a8e33117575
Requested by: @ye-luo
>From b82797185fcc335c0f517df8d2dd34658674e2df Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ye Luo
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 13:19:58 -0500
Subject: [PATC
https://github.com/llvmbot milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115944
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
jhuber6 wrote:
This patch doesn't apply cleanly for me
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/110217
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/matthias-springer edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112141
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
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 8a49434df62e394cd109f0189349b4d28dafa525
b59db4636891df96b7569c9737e361431f898909 --e
River707 wrote:
> > The only very high level conern I have is the use and need of
> > `InsertionPoint::after`. As I understand, this is a not-yet-implemented
> > optimization for the future for the purpose of reusing materializations by
> > calculating a better insertion point where it may dom
h-vetinari wrote:
> This patch doesn't apply cleanly for me
That's because it's a series of patches (see OP), so you have to apply them all
in order (or simply check out the branch that represents this PR)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/110217
___
Author: Tarun Prabhu
Date: 2024-11-12T15:48:07-07:00
New Revision: 86e5163d2403cebb179815ea8ee012f13d273efd
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/86e5163d2403cebb179815ea8ee012f13d273efd
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/86e5163d2403cebb179815ea8ee012f13d273efd.diff
serge-sans-paille wrote:
For the record, I've just submitted
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115504 that fixes a few issues
related to the same kind of issues...
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114786
___
llvm-branch-commits maili
llvmbot wrote:
@shiltian What do you think about merging this PR to the release branch?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115944
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/list
@@ -0,0 +1,210 @@
+#===-- CMakeLists.txt
--===#
+#
+# Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions.
+# See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-
jhuber6 wrote:
> > This patch doesn't apply cleanly for me
>
> That's because it's a series of patches (see OP), so you have to apply them
> all in order (or simply check out the branch that represents this PR)
I thought that's what happens by default when you use
https://patch-diff.githubuse
https://github.com/hvdijk updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114786
>From fb70629e196c516ebd5083f8624ba614f746ef67 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: serge-sans-paille
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2024 09:14:35 +
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] =?UTF-8?q?[llvm]=20Fix=20=5F=5Fbuiltin=5Fobject=5Fsiz?=
=
ye-luo wrote:
> Are we still releasing 19?
yes. Point releases 19.1.x
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115944
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-
@@ -155,162 +50,131 @@ set(sources
product.cpp
pseudo-unit.cpp
ragged.cpp
- random.cpp
- reduce.cpp
- reduction.cpp
stat.cpp
- stop.cpp
sum.cpp
support.cpp
- temporary-stack.cpp
terminator.cpp
- time-intrinsic.cpp
tools.cpp
transformational.cpp
https://github.com/matthias-springer updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115816
>From b425caab826e5d9ad2f078d6f548f3215005bf7f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matthias Springer
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 05:14:43 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] replace with multiple
---
mlir/include/mlir/
matthias-springer wrote:
> One question I have here is why not just insert right before the operation
> that is being replaced? What is the need for trying to insert after one of
> the values? Wouldnt' that remove the need for all of this complexity? It
> gives you a singular place to insert.
dschuff wrote:
oh nevermind, I was confused; #114693 is closed, but this is the PR that
implements the backport.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115844
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llv
mshockwave wrote:
> This helps reduce register pressure for some cases.
Is it possible to provide some numbers to back this up? Preferably using some
well known benchmarks like SPEC and/or llvm-test-suite
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115858
https://github.com/Artem-B updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115081
>From ed0fe30e7d4da94b13018e563971524e013c512f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Manasij Mukherjee
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 15:15:30 -0600
Subject: [PATCH] [NVPTX] Promote v2i8 to v2i16 (#89)
Promote v2i8 to v2i1
https://github.com/choikwa approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114438
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
choikwa wrote:
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114438
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
anutosh491 wrote:
Hi @aheejin
The checks pass as expected. I guess this should be ready !
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115848
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/l
https://github.com/gbMattN updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108385
>From 82e7bec9acb33f2bd609e457ebe60febbc45e155 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matthew Nagy
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 12:36:57 +
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [TySan] Fix struct access with different bases
---
compiler
kyulee-com wrote:
> Do we know why `OpIdx` is 4 here? This is confusing to me because it looks
> like there is only one argument, `%5`.
The `ignoreOp` function was initially designed for use with
`llvm::StructuralHashWithDifferences`, where it iterates over operands within
the same instructio
michaelmaitland wrote:
For the recent scheduler patches, the common theme is we saw another target did
something brought that functionality to RISC-V. How do we know that these
changes are sensible defaults for RISC-V cores? Are you making measurements on
any cores? Are they in order, out of o
Artem-B wrote:
The CI check was unhappy because PR was based on the tree before 19.1.4. I've
rebased it on top of the most recent commit.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115081
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.l
https://github.com/ldionne approved this pull request.
I think this is reasonable to cherry-pick. It's fixing a somewhat more niche
use case, but if that's useful to @mgorny I think it makes sense to backport.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115892
matthias-springer wrote:
> The only very high level conern I have is the use and need of
> `InsertionPoint::after`. As I understand, this is a not-yet-implemented
> optimization for the future for the purpose of reusing materializations by
> calculating a better insertion point where it may do
wangpc-pp wrote:
I added two experimental options: `-riscv-disable-latency-heuristic` and
`-riscv-should-track-lane-masks` and evaluated the statistics
(`regalloc.NumSpills`/`regalloc.NumReloads`) on llvm-test-suite (option: `-O3
-march=rva23u64`):
1. `-riscv-disable-latency-heuristic=true` an
wangpc-pp wrote:
Paste the data here as well
I added two experimental options: `-riscv-disable-latency-heuristic` and
`-riscv-should-track-lane-masks` and evaluated the statistics
(`regalloc.NumSpills`/`regalloc.NumReloads`) on llvm-test-suite (option: `-O3
-march=rva23u64`):
1. `-riscv
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-selectiondag
Author: Heejin Ahn (aheejin)
Changes
So far we have assumed that we only rethrow the exception caught in the
innermost EH pad. This is true in code we directly generate, but after inlining
this may not be the case. For example, consid
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-backend-x86
Author: Heejin Ahn (aheejin)
Changes
So far we have assumed that we only rethrow the exception caught in the
innermost EH pad. This is true in code we directly generate, but after inlining
this may not be the case. For example, consider thi
https://github.com/aheejin updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115844
>From 9d61762134fe2604a1a9c4a2a7d91ad709b88a83 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Heejin Ahn
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 21:45:13 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] [WebAssembly] Fix rethrow's index calculation (#114693)
So far we h
https://github.com/aheejin created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115844
So far we have assumed that we only rethrow the exception caught in the
innermost EH pad. This is true in code we directly generate, but after inlining
this may not be the case. For example, consider this code:
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-backend-aarch64
Author: Heejin Ahn (aheejin)
Changes
So far we have assumed that we only rethrow the exception caught in the
innermost EH pad. This is true in code we directly generate, but after inlining
this may not be the case. For example, consider
Author: SahilPatidar
Date: 2024-11-12T16:46:14+05:30
New Revision: d23ed7b82735b367501949541b7194bbb6b4fb86
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/d23ed7b82735b367501949541b7194bbb6b4fb86
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/d23ed7b82735b367501949541b7194bbb6b4fb86.diff
@@ -23,8 +24,8 @@ void f(int m) {
}
// CHECK: TypeSanitizer: type-aliasing-violation on address
- // CHECK-NEXT: READ of size 2 at {{.+}} with type short accesses an existing
object of type long long
- // CHECK-NEXT:in f violation-pr47137.c:30
+ // CHECK-NEXT:
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ int main(void) {
// CHECK: TypeSanitizer: type-aliasing-violation on address
// CHECK-NEXT: WRITE of size 8 at {{.+}} with type double accesses an
existing object of type float
- // CHECK-NEXT: in main violation-pr45282.c:25
+ // CHECK-NEXT: i
https://github.com/gbMattN updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96507
>From c684ebd51c77f31a03eb874f5d09d4131c648b0b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matthew Nagy
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:48:53 +
Subject: [PATCH] [TySan] Improves compatability for tests
---
compiler-rt/test/ty
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-backend-risc-v
Author: Pengcheng Wang (wangpc-pp)
Changes
This can help to improve the register pressure for LMUL>1 cases.
---
Patch is 202.84 KiB, truncated to 20.00 KiB below, full version:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115843.diff
40
https://github.com/tru updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115287
>From d174e2a5538984bca3d31ac41aff71528bb28747 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Martin=20Storsj=C3=B6?=
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2024 00:18:57 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] [compiler-rt] [fuzzer] Skip trying to set the thre
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Anutosh Bhat (anutosh491)
Changes
---
Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115846.diff
1 Files Affected:
- (modified) clang/lib/Interpreter/CMakeLists.txt (+2)
``diff
diff --git a/clang/lib/Interpreter/CMakeL
https://github.com/anutosh491 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115846
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
github-actions[bot] wrote:
⚠️ We detected that you are using a GitHub private e-mail address to contribute
to the repo. Please turn off [Keep my email addresses
private](https://github.com/settings/emails) setting in your account. See
[LLVM
Discourse](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/hidden-email
https://github.com/aheejin edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115844
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -69,3 +72,37 @@ AMDGPU::getBaseWithConstantOffset(MachineRegisterInfo &MRI,
Register Reg,
return std::pair(Reg, 0);
}
+
+IntrinsicLaneMaskAnalyzer::IntrinsicLaneMaskAnalyzer(MachineFunction &MF)
+: MRI(MF.getRegInfo()) {
+ initLaneMaskIntrinsics(MF);
+}
+
+bool Intr
anutosh491 wrote:
Closing as duplicate of #115848
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115846
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/anutosh491 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115846
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/petar-avramovic updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112882
>From 3854308d10edc1329086faf26542ca469b26c589 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Petar Avramovic
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 15:37:59 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] AMDGPU/GlobalISel: RegBankLegalize rules for load
Add
https://github.com/petar-avramovic updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112866
>From c59ad6e821a49e48df70edff1fdb044eb0083b1c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Petar Avramovic
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:10:57 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] MachineUniformityAnalysis: Improve isConstantOrUndefVa
@@ -1390,8 +1412,9 @@ void
ConversionPatternRewriterImpl::notifyOpReplaced(Operation *op,
isUnresolvedMaterialization = true;
// Create mappings for each of the new result values.
- for (auto [newValue, result] : llvm::zip(newValues, op->getResults())) {
-if (!ne
https://github.com/zero9178 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115816
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -15440,9 +15440,25 @@ bool BoUpSLP::collectValuesToDemote(
MaskedValueIsZero(I->getOperand(1), Mask, SimplifyQuery(*DL)));
});
};
+auto AbsChecker = [&](unsigned BitWidth, unsigned OrigBitWidth) {
+ assert(BitWidth <= OrigBitWidth && "Unexp
https://github.com/kyulee-com edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115750
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
Author: Balazs Benics
Date: 2024-11-12T16:22:07+01:00
New Revision: fe90afe8b22a8c89dc418451c200be4a90229e34
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/fe90afe8b22a8c89dc418451c200be4a90229e34
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/fe90afe8b22a8c89dc418451c200be4a90229e34.diff
tru wrote:
Looking at the patch it looks sane to me. Is there any risk that this breaks
something if we merge it as is now?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115006
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https:
https://github.com/tru closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115287
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
github-actions[bot] wrote:
@mstorsjo (or anyone else). If you would like to add a note about this fix in
the release notes (completely optional). Please reply to this comment with a
one or two sentence description of the fix. When you are done, please add the
release:note label to this PR.
https://github.com/wangpc-pp edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115843
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -618,21 +618,27 @@ class SparseCallConverter : public
OpConversionPattern {
assert(!sparseFlat.empty());
if (sparseFlat.size() > 1) {
auto flatSize = sparseFlat.size();
-ValueRange fields(iterator_range(
-newCall.result_begin() + retO
@@ -618,21 +618,27 @@ class SparseCallConverter : public
OpConversionPattern {
assert(!sparseFlat.empty());
if (sparseFlat.size() > 1) {
auto flatSize = sparseFlat.size();
-ValueRange fields(iterator_range(
-newCall.result_begin() + retO
@@ -1497,15 +1530,33 @@ void ConversionPatternRewriter::replaceOp(Operation
*op, ValueRange newValues) {
impl->logger.startLine()
<< "** Replace : '" << op->getName() << "'(" << op << ")\n";
});
- impl->notifyOpReplaced(op, newValues);
+ SmallVector newVals(new
@@ -795,12 +795,32 @@ class ConversionPatternRewriter final : public
PatternRewriter {
/// patterns even if a failure is encountered during the rewrite step.
bool canRecoverFromRewriteFailure() const override { return true; }
- /// PatternRewriter hook for replacing an o
zero9178 wrote:
Should the changes here be part of the other PR?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115816
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/
@@ -1417,12 +1441,21 @@ void
ConversionPatternRewriterImpl::notifyOpReplaced(Operation *op,
}
// Remap result to replacement value.
-if (newValue)
- mapping.map(result, newValue);
+if (!repl.empty()) {
+ if (repl.size() == 1) {
+// Single rep
@@ -618,21 +618,27 @@ class SparseCallConverter : public
OpConversionPattern {
assert(!sparseFlat.empty());
if (sparseFlat.size() > 1) {
auto flatSize = sparseFlat.size();
-ValueRange fields(iterator_range(
-newCall.result_begin() + retO
@@ -1497,15 +1530,33 @@ void ConversionPatternRewriter::replaceOp(Operation
*op, ValueRange newValues) {
impl->logger.startLine()
<< "** Replace : '" << op->getName() << "'(" << op << ")\n";
});
- impl->notifyOpReplaced(op, newValues);
+ SmallVector newVals(new
https://github.com/zero9178 commented:
Looks mostly good to me besides some code nits :slightly_smiling_face:
The only very high level conern I have is the use and need of
`InsertionPoint::after`. As I understand, this is a not-yet-implemented
optimization for the future for the purpose of re
@@ -795,12 +795,32 @@ class ConversionPatternRewriter final : public
PatternRewriter {
/// patterns even if a failure is encountered during the rewrite step.
bool canRecoverFromRewriteFailure() const override { return true; }
- /// PatternRewriter hook for replacing an o
https://github.com/wangpc-pp created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115858
This helps reduce register pressure for some cases.
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-backend-risc-v
Author: Pengcheng Wang (wangpc-pp)
Changes
This helps reduce register pressure for some cases.
---
Patch is 7.18 MiB, truncated to 20.00 KiB below, full version:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115858.diff
465 Files Affecte
https://github.com/wangpc-pp edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115858
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
statham-arm wrote:
Despite the force-push, I think the current patch looks the same as the one I
clicked approve on (maybe it was just rebased?). I can't see a problem – it's
the same patch that hasn't been causing trouble on `main`.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115006
___
@@ -15440,9 +15440,25 @@ bool BoUpSLP::collectValuesToDemote(
MaskedValueIsZero(I->getOperand(1), Mask, SimplifyQuery(*DL)));
});
};
+auto AbsChecker = [&](unsigned BitWidth, unsigned OrigBitWidth) {
+ assert(BitWidth <= OrigBitWidth && "Unexp
tru wrote:
The force push was just a rebase to get it on the latest code.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115006
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bran
@@ -0,0 +1,198 @@
+
+
+# Fortran Runtime (flang-rt)
+
+Flang-rt is the runtime library for code emitted by the Flang compiler
+(https://flang.llvm.org).
+
+
+## Getting Started
+
+There are two build modes for the flang-rt. The bootstrap build, also
+called the in-tree build, and
@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+#===-- unittests/CMakeLists.txt
===#
+#
+# Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions.
+# See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-
https://github.com/vgvassilev approved this pull request.
LGTM, the risk of breaking binary compatibility and user base is very low.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115848
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.or
aheejin wrote:
What do you mean by already done? This is a request to backport the fix to 19.4
release.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115844
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi
https://github.com/dschuff approved this pull request.
LGTM, although it looks like this is already done?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115844
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cg
aheejin wrote:
As I said I'm not a release maintainer. I don't have permission to merge
commits to release branches.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115848
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists
https://github.com/llvmbot created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115892
Backport 21da4e7f51c7adfd0b1c5defc8bd0d16ea1ce759
Requested by: @mgorny
>From 9a0c3e5488912da04e5465d0c3427ed21d23de0e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Louis Dionne
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 08:46:59 -0400
Subject:
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
