Skip to content
  1. Oct 08, 2010
  2. Oct 01, 2010
  3. Sep 30, 2010
  4. Sep 25, 2010
    • Owen Anderson's avatar
      LoadPRE was not properly checking that the load it was PRE'ing post-dominated... · b590a927
      Owen Anderson authored
      LoadPRE was not properly checking that the load it was PRE'ing post-dominated the block it was being hoisted to.
      Splitting critical edges at the merge point only addressed part of the issue; it is also possible for non-post-domination
      to occur when the path from the load to the merge has branches in it.  Unfortunately, full anticipation analysis is
      time-consuming, so for now approximate it.  This is strictly more conservative than real anticipation, so we will miss
      some cases that real PRE would allow, but we also no longer insert loads into paths where they didn't exist before. :-)
      
      This is a very slight net positive on SPEC for me (0.5% on average).  Most of the benchmarks are largely unaffected, but
      when it pays off it pays off decently: 181.mcf improves by 4.5% on my machine.
      
      llvm-svn: 114785
      b590a927
  5. Sep 04, 2010
  6. Sep 02, 2010
    • Duncan Sands's avatar
      Reapply commit 112699, speculatively reverted by echristo, since · 6778149f
      Duncan Sands authored
      I'm sure it is harmless.  Original commit message:
      If PrototypeValue is erased in the middle of using the SSAUpdator
      then the SSAUpdator may access freed memory.  Instead, simply pass
      in the type and name explicitly, which is all that was used anyway.
      
      llvm-svn: 112810
      6778149f
  7. Sep 01, 2010
  8. Aug 29, 2010
  9. Aug 07, 2010
  10. Aug 06, 2010
  11. Jul 22, 2010
  12. Jul 09, 2010
  13. Jun 30, 2010
  14. Jun 24, 2010
  15. Jun 22, 2010
  16. May 28, 2010
  17. May 08, 2010
  18. May 05, 2010
  19. May 04, 2010
  20. Apr 17, 2010
  21. Apr 16, 2010
  22. Apr 15, 2010
  23. Apr 09, 2010
  24. Mar 25, 2010
  25. Mar 02, 2010
  26. Mar 01, 2010
  27. Feb 28, 2010
  28. Feb 26, 2010
Loading