<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Russell Wallace via llvm-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Michael Zolotukhin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mzolotukhin@apple.com" target="_blank">mzolotukhin@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
Several passes would have troubles with such code (namely, GVN and JumpThreading).</blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Can you just choose not to run those particular passes? I suppose the big problem would be if there's a problem with the code generation and related stuff like instruction scheduling and register allocation - is that likely to be the case? </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>I seem to recall the sanitizers hit some scaling issues with lots of small basic blocks (with lots of variables) in the register allocator.<br><br>- David<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>