search for: bb10

> 2. install and configure OfflineIMAP to synchronize the IMAP folders between your ISP IMAP server and your Dovecot server; see for example > http://www.offlineimap.org/doc/quick_start.html OfflineIMAP is not the way to go. Many ISPs have very low size limits for the mailbox sizes. The one I am looking at right now does have this problem (unless you pay extra). From what I have

...+) sum += 2; } return sum; } ------------------------------------------------------------- I could get the corresponding LLVM assembly with llvm-gcc and llvm-dis: ------------------------------------------------------------- int %foo() { entry: br label %bb8.outer bb8.outer: ; preds = %bb10, %entry %indvar26 = phi uint [ 0, %entry ], [ %indvar.next27, %bb10 ] ; <uint> [#uses=2] %sum.0.pn.ph = phi int [ 0, %entry ], [ %sum.1, %bb10 ] ; <int> [#uses=1] %i.0.0.ph = cast uint %indvar26 to int ; <int> [#uses=1] br label %bb8 bb3: ; preds = %bb8 %indvar.next = ad...

Hi, Found CloneBasicBlock utility only does the cloning without any remapping. Consider below example: Input block: sw.epilog: ; preds = %sw.bb20, %sw.bb15, %sw.bb10, %sw.bb6, %sw.bb2, %sw.bb, %while.body, %if.end29 %no_final.1 = phi i32 [ %no_final.055, %while.body ], [ 1, %if.end29 ], [ %no_final.055, %sw.bb20 ], [ %no_final.055, %sw.bb15 ], [ %no_final.055, %sw.bb10 ], [ %no_final.055, %sw.bb6 ], [ %no_final.055, %sw.bb2 ], [ %no_final.055, %sw.bb ] %loc...

Hello. I updated my LLVM with version 2.1 from 1.9. But I am curious why I still have signed integer type. I still get LLVM IR as follows: ...... ...... bb8.outer: ; preds = %bb10, %entry %i.0.0.ph = phi uint [ 0, %entry ], [ %indvar.next26, %bb10 ] ; <uint> [#uses=2] %sum.0.pn.ph = phi uint [ 0, %entry ], [ %sum.1, %bb10 ] ; <uint> [#uses=1] br label %bb8 bb3: ; preds = %bb8 %indvar.next = add uint %j.1, 1 ; <uint> [#uses=1] br label %bb8 ..... ....

Hi Henrique, I have tried using -mergereturn and inserting a free into the predecessors of dominance frontier of malloc block and it caused double free. It is possible for multiple free's to be inserted on the path from malloc to an exit. For example, in the following CFG: BB10 (malloc) / \ BB11 BB12 ... / \ / \ ... \ / \ / \ / BB13 BB14 BB15 | ... | / BB16 The block BB10 dominates BB11, B...

...as multiple successors, then a critical edge will be placed between this predecessor and the block in the dominance frontier. Thus, the predecessor will now be a block that also dominates nobody. This means that we cannot reach another block where a call to free() was inserted without going back to BB10 again. I hope this reasoning make sense. : ) Also, you might also have to treat the special case in which the block where the malloc() is placed dominates the return block. H. On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Bin Tzeng <bintzeng at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Henrique, > > I have tr...

...g Jae Lee wrote: >> I updated my LLVM with version 2.1 from 1.9. >> But I am curious why I still have signed integer type. > >Did you update your llvm-gcc? > >-Chris > >> I still get LLVM IR as follows: >> ...... >> ...... >> bb8.outer: ; preds = %bb10, %entry >> %i.0.0.ph = phi uint [ 0, %entry ], [ %indvar.next26, %bb10 ] ; <uint> [#uses=2] >> %sum.0.pn.ph = phi uint [ 0, %entry ], [ %sum.1, %bb10 ] ; <uint> [#uses=1] >> br label %bb8 >> >> bb3: ; preds = %bb8 >> %indvar.next = add uint %j....

Actually the reverse pointer doesn't have to match. In fact this is impossible if you are setting up virtual accounts on one server for different domains. You just need to have a reverse pointer. Most email servers look to seen if the reverse pointer has a "dyn" in it and blocks those. ? Original Message ? From: build+dovecot at de-korte.org Sent: October 26, 2020 2:02 AM

...arget triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" define fastcc zeroext i1 @testfunc(i8** noalias nocapture readonly dereferenceable(8)) unnamed_addr { entry-block: %1 = load i8*, i8** %0, align 8 %2 = icmp ne i8* %1, null %.mux = zext i1 %2 to i8 br i1 %2, label %bb10, label %bb15 bb10: ; preds = %entry-block %3 = load i8, i8* %1, align 1 %4 = icmp eq i8 %3, 42 %.1 = zext i1 %4 to i8 br label %bb15 bb15: ; preds = %entry-block, %bb10 %_...

...y %tmp5 = tail call void (i8*)* (void (i8*)*)* asm "", "=r,0"( void (i8*)* @_Jv_RegisterClasses ) ; <void (i8*)*> [#uses=2] %tmp7 = icmp eq void (i8*)* %tmp5, null ; <i1> [#uses=1] br i1 %tmp7, label %UnifiedReturnBlock, label %bb10 bb10: ; preds = %bb tail call void %tmp5( i8* bitcast ([0 x i8*]* @__JCR_LIST__ to i8*) ) ret void UnifiedReturnBlock: ; preds = %bb, %entry ret void } declare extern_weak void @_Jv_RegisterClasses(i8*) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML...

...t in this plain >> text space. > >Let me rephrase your question for you. You can then see the right >question, and the answer for it. > >The question is, why is, why can't I change: > > bb8: > sum_1 = i_0_pn + sum_0_pn; > br bool %exitcond, label %bb10, label %bb3 > >into > > bb8: > br bool %exitcond, label %bb10, label %bb3 > sum_1 = i_0_pn + sum_0_pn; > >? > >The answer is, because that is an invalid transform. > > A: > B; > C; > >has to be transformed into: > > B; &g...

...and >> BB22. That is, a free is inserted in all the paths from BB12 to all exits >> after all users of malloc to avoid memory leak. I wonder whether there is >> any pass that does similar analysis in order to avoid duplication of >> efforts. >> >> BB10 (entry) >> / \ >> BB11 BB12 (malloc) >> / / \ >> BB13 / BB15 >> \ / / \ >> \ / BB18 BB19 >> \ / \...

...That is, a free is inserted in all the paths from BB12 to all exits >>> after all users of malloc to avoid memory leak. I wonder whether there is >>> any pass that does similar analysis in order to avoid duplication of >>> efforts. >>> >>> BB10 (entry) >>> / \ >>> BB11 BB12 (malloc) >>> / / \ >>> BB13 / BB15 >>> \ / / \ >>> \ / BB18 BB19 >>>...

...ux-gnu" > > define fastcc zeroext i1 @testfunc(i8** noalias nocapture readonly > dereferenceable(8)) unnamed_addr { > entry-block: > %1 = load i8*, i8** %0, align 8 > %2 = icmp ne i8* %1, null > %.mux = zext i1 %2 to i8 > br i1 %2, label %bb10, label %bb15 > > bb10: ; preds = > %entry-block > %3 = load i8, i8* %1, align 1 > %4 = icmp eq i8 %3, 42 > %.1 = zext i1 %4 to i8 > br label %bb15 > > bb15:...

We have a template for extensions and voicmail. They look like this: exten => %ACCOUNT%,1,Verbose(0,Entering extension %ACCOUNT%) same => n(DialDesk),Verbose(0,${CALLERID(all)} Calling ${EXTEN}) same => n,Dial(SIP/%ACCOUNT%,30) same => n(VoiceMail),Set(CDR(userfield)=VoiceMail) same => n,Verbose(0,${CALLERID(all)} going into voice mail for %ACCOUNT%)

...6 = call i32 @atoi( i8* %tmp5 ) nounwind %tmp7 = icmp eq i32 %tmp6, 1 %tmp78 = zext i1 %tmp7 to i8 %toBool = icmp ne i8 %tmp78, 0 br i1 %toBool, label %bb, label %bb9 bb: ; preds = %L2 ptrtoint i8* inttoptr (i32 1 to i8*) to i32 br label %bb10* *bb9: ; preds = %L2 ptrtoint i8* inttoptr (i32 2 to i8*) to i32 br label %bb10 bb10: ; preds = %bb9, %bb %x.0 = phi i32 [ 2, %bb9 ], [ 1, %bb ] %tmp12 = add i32 %x.0, 10 br label %return return: ret i32 %tmp12* ** *indirectgot...

On Jul 23, 2008, at 8:47 PM, kapil anand wrote: > > Specifically, I need a way to represent indirect branch instruction > (in binary) as an equivalent LLVM instruction. With switch > instruction , I would have to list all the possible targets and then > initialize the corresponding instruction. I was just thinking > whether it might be possible to have some kind of

...4. Another way to go is to insert a free in both BB21 and BB22. That is, a free is inserted in all the paths from BB12 to all exits after all users of malloc to avoid memory leak. I wonder whether there is any pass that does similar analysis in order to avoid duplication of efforts. BB10 (entry) / \ BB11 BB12 (malloc) / / \ BB13 / BB15 \ / / \ \ / BB18 BB19 \ / \ / BB20 BB21 BB22 \ | /...

Hi, AFAICT there are two places where zext instructions may get folded into PHI nodes. One is FoldPHIArgZextsIntoPHI and the other is the more generic FoldPHIArgOpIntoPHI. Now, the former only handles PHIs with more than 2 incoming values, while the latter only handles casts where the source type is legal. This means that for an PHI node with two incoming i8 values, both resulting from `zext i1