search for: christopherwood07

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Christopher Wood <christopherwood07 at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: >> >> As for a "better" way to implement PRE, it depends on what algorithm >> you want to use. If you just want to write a PRE pass, that's easy >>...

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > As for a "better" way to implement PRE, it depends on what algorithm > you want to use. If you just want to write a PRE pass, that's easy > enough without dominance frontiers. > I simply want to write a PRE pass to get a better understanding of the transformation. Any tips on where to

Is there a reason this is better than the modified algorithm created by Ferrante? It looks like yours has as bad a worst case time bound in reality. That is, the algorithm runs in O(sum of the size of all the dominance frontiers). http://www.cs.rice.edu/~keith/Embed/dom.pdf See figure 5. It will only touch nodes actually in the dominance frontier. This is what GCC uses. There are actually real

Hi all, Does anyone know how to recreate the DominanceFronter and PostDominanceFrontier structures using the API of the latest release? To my knowledge, these are needed to implement a PRE pass (as done in the past<https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/tags/RELEASE_13/lib/Transforms/Scalar/PRE.cpp>), but they were removed a while ago for efficiency reasons. Is there a better way to