search for: blockaddr

...way to > express such relationships in LLVM IR ("best" in the sense of allowing > other optimizations to run effectively)? Bear in mind that in this > example N=2, but it may be way bigger than that. Just to clarify: I already figured out two ways to do it, i.e.: %0 = phi i8* [blockaddr(%succ0), %pred0], [blockaddr(%succ1), %pred1], ... ... indirectbr %0, [%succ0, %succ1, ...] or %0 = phi i8 [0, %pred0], [1, %pred1], ... ... switch %0, undef, [0, %succ0], [1, %succ1], ... what I'd like to know is which one do you think is better (and why) or if there are better ways I did...

Nella citazione martedì 2 agosto 2011 20:02:08, Michael Ilseman ha scritto: > I'm assuming that you're talking about a situation where this can't be > determined statically in the existing LLVM IR, but you know it's true > and want to put it in (e.g. you're the one generating LLVM IR). Correct. Or, more precisely, I'd like to investigate macro compression, i.e.

...pecific successor. The only way to split an >> indirect goto is to insert code before the jump which checks for a >> specific destination address. This is very likely to be a pessimization. > Do you mean like turning a indirectbr %addr, [%a, %b, ...] > into a switch %addr, undef, [blockaddr(%a), %a], [blo > ckaddr(%b), %b], ... > ? (I know that the switch doesn't accept a pointer as first argument, it's just an example) That difference is relevant, though, because there's no way to implement such a switch except as a series of pointer comparisons (or at least offset...

...ock to go to a specific successor. The only way to split an > indirect goto is to insert code before the jump which checks for a > specific destination address. This is very likely to be a pessimization. Do you mean like turning a indirectbr %addr, [%a, %b, ...] into a switch %addr, undef, [blockaddr(%a), %a], [blo ckaddr(%b), %b], ... ? (I know that the switch doesn't accept a pointer as first argument, it's just an example) > To answer your original question, the current implementation design > for indirect goto is intentionally based around having a single block > that ter...

On Apr 17, 2013, at 7:26 PM, Yuri <yuri at rawbw.com> wrote: > On 10/02/2012 13:01, Duncan Sands wrote: >> >> I think Chris is the right person to look at this, hopefully he will. > > Now 5 months passed. I updated the patch for this current revision. > Can anybody review this and check in please? > > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13163 >

On 10/02/2012 13:01, Duncan Sands wrote: > > I think Chris is the right person to look at this, hopefully he will. Now 5 months passed. I updated the patch for this current revision. Can anybody review this and check in please? http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13163 Yuri

On Jul 7, 2011, at 4:33 AM, Carlo Alberto Ferraris wrote: > Il 07/07/2011 11:14, Cameron Zwarich ha scritto: >> >> I haven't read the code in detail, but it looks like JumpThreading at least attempts to thread across indirect branches. You can either try to fix it or file a bug with your test case. > In the source it says "If the predecessor is an indirect goto, we

...ps/2008-07-05-ByVal.ll LLVM :: CodeGen/Mips/2008-07-15-SmallSection.ll LLVM :: CodeGen/Mips/2008-08-03-ReturnDouble.ll LLVM :: CodeGen/Mips/2008-10-13-LegalizerBug.ll LLVM :: CodeGen/Mips/2008-11-10-xint_to_fp.ll LLVM :: CodeGen/Mips/2010-07-20-Switch.ll LLVM :: CodeGen/Mips/blockaddr.ll LLVM :: CodeGen/Mips/cmov.ll LLVM :: CodeGen/Mips/divrem.ll LLVM :: CodeGen/Mips/private.ll LLVM :: CodeGen/SPARC/2007-07-05-LiveIntervalAssert.ll LLVM :: CodeGen/SPARC/2009-08-28-PIC.ll LLVM :: CodeGen/SPARC/2011-01-11-CC.ll LLVM :: CodeGen/SPARC/2011-01-19-DelaySlot...

Il 07/07/2011 11:14, Cameron Zwarich ha scritto: > I haven't read the code in detail, but it looks like JumpThreading at > least attempts to thread across indirect branches. You can either try > to fix it or file a bug with your test case. In the source it says "If the predecessor is an indirect goto, we can't split the edge.

There are LLVM 2.9 RC1 pre-release tarballs source available. You can find them here: http://llvm.org/pre-releases/2.9/ Please download them, build them, and compile things to your heart's content. And most importantly file a bunch of bug reports. :-) Share and enjoy! -bw

I'm cross-compiling for MIPS. The test-case is as simple as it can be: void foo() {} $clang -target mips64-octeon-linux -c -B path/to/cross/compiled/mips/assembler a.c And then I look at the object file: $ nm a.o 0000000000000020 t $tmp0 0000000000000000 T foo I would like to know what "$tmp0" is. Furthermore, if I pass -g to clang, I see a whole bunch of such symbols. Some of