search for: bruenink

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Marc Brünink<marc at bruenink.de> wrote: >>> actually my problem is easier. So I still have hope that it is possible: >>> >>> MemDep->Pass1->Pass2 >>> >>> Pass1 uses MemDep. Pass2 only uses Pass1. Eventually, Pass2 changes the >>> code. Unfortunately, non-local dep...

Hi all, I just noticed that LICM does not hoist/sink the following store out of the loop: int array[20]; int i; for (i = 0; i<100; i++) { array [0] = 0; } The getElementPtr instruction is hoisted out of the loop; the store is not. Did I miss something obvious? Bitcode file attached. Generated using LLVM 2.5 and llvm-gcc -c -emit-llvm

2009/10/27 Marc Brünink <marc at bruenink.de> > Hi all, > > I just noticed that LICM does not hoist/sink the following store out of the > loop: > > int array[20]; > int i; > for (i = 0; i<100; i++) { > array [0] = 0; > } > > The getElementPtr instruction...

On Oct 27, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > 2009/10/27 Marc Brünink <marc at bruenink.de> > Hi all, > > I just noticed that LICM does not hoist/sink the following store out > of the loop: > > int array[20]; > int i; > for (i = 0; i<100; i++) { > array [0] = 0; > } > > The getElementPtr instruction...

Chris Lattner schrieb: > On Aug 21, 2009, at 3:04 AM, Marc Brünink wrote: >>> This isn't really possible. The issue is that MemDep doesn't just >>> "analyze your function". It is designed to be as lazy as possible, >>> which means that it only does analysis when a query is performed. This >>> means that if you have

Hi all, I need to transform loops like this one for (int i = b; i<e; ++i) buffer[i]; into loops like this one: for(p=buffer+b; p<buffer+e; ++p) *p; Does any pass already perform this? If there's none, I guess loop-reduce is a good starting point for me, isn't it? Thanks Marc

John McCall schrieb: > Vikram S. Adve wrote: >> For the translator in step (2), I've so far had them generate LLVM IR >> in memory using the LLVM APIs. They find it a *lot* of work to learn >> the LLVM APIs, which doesn't teach them much about compiler concepts >> per se. To simplify this project, I am considering changing the >> project so they

Hi, is there a convenient way to get all allocations popped from the stack by llvm.stackrestore? Is this even decidable at compile time? Thanks Marc

Hi, I do have a FunctionPass that does change the code. This FunctionPass requires another FunctionPass which performs all the necessary analyses. This AnalysisPass again requires MemoryDependenceAnalysis. The problem is, that I would like MemoryDependenceAnalysis to run on the unaltered module. I do not want to have dependencies to changed code. What is the cleanest way to do this? Sounds

Chris Lattner schrieb: > > On Aug 20, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Marc Brünink wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I do have a FunctionPass that does change the code. This FunctionPass >> requires another FunctionPass which performs all the necessary analyses. >> This AnalysisPass again requires MemoryDependenceAnalysis. >> >> The problem is, that I would like