search for: cytronics

Here's how I did things, back when I got to write my own infrastructure. It's still O(n^2) in the worst case, but *much* quicker in the expected case. Number all the basic blocks, 0 to n-1 and build a vector mapping from integer to block. Requires O(n) time and space. For each block, compute the set containing it's dominance frontier, based on Figure 10 of * * *Efficiently

In the literature (see below for a reference), when a dominance frontier is computed, it is computed from a CFG that contains a dummy entry node and dummy exit node. Further, those dummy nodes are potential members of the (post-)dominance frontier for a given basic block. In LLVM, I could not figure out a way to determine if the dummy entry node is a member of the post-dominance frontier of

Does LLVM contain any control dependence analysis pass? I do not see one when looking through the lib/Analysis passes. Thanks, Mark

On 12/19/11 9:55 PM, Mark Lacey wrote: > Does LLVM contain any control dependence analysis pass? There is a PostDominatorTree analysis. Control-dependence can be computed easily using it (see the paper "Efficiently computing static single assignment form and the control dependence graph" by Cytron et. al. for details on the algorithm). -- John T. > > I do not see one when

On Dec 24, 2011, at 7:48 AM, Preston Briggs wrote: > Here's how I did things, back when I got to write my own infrastructure. It's still O(n^2) in the worst case, but much quicker in the expected case. > > Number all the basic blocks, 0 to n-1 and build a vector mapping from integer to block. Requires O(n) time and space. > > For each block, compute the set containing

On Dec 23, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Preston Briggs wrote: > Reading the comments in Analysis/DominanceFrontier.h, I see a note that the structure is deprecated and we're not to use it for anything new. > > Has it been replaced with something equally useful, or shall I redo the calculation for myself, or ...? We're hoping to remove them, because they're inherently an N^2 data

> the next tool reading the IR does not like phis when it's generating VHDL. If you're doing a conversion from LLVM IR to some other non-SSA IR (like the tool's), you can do the phi node removal yourself as you convert. Basically, every predecessor block referenced by a phi node will have an assignment to that variable before branching. There are techniques to make the resultant

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: Sorry I never responded to this: > In the literature (see below for a reference), when a dominance frontier > is computed, it is computed from a CFG that contains a dummy entry node > and dummy exit node. Further, those dummy nodes are potential members > of the (post-)dominance frontier for a given basic block. In LLVM, I > could not

Reading the comments in Analysis/DominanceFrontier.h, I see a note that the structure is deprecated and we're not to use it for anything new. Has it been replaced with something equally useful, or shall I redo the calculation for myself, or ...? Thanks, Preston -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On 30.8.2011, at 19.19, Eli Friedman wrote: > reg2mem won't do quite this transformation... not sure exactly what you need. I need to get rid of phis. This code is compiled from C++ and for some functions there are no phis, but multiple call instructions. I am targeting hardware in the end, and the next tool reading the IR does not like phis when it's generating VHDL. My questions may

On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Cameron Zwarich <zwarich at apple.com> wrote: > On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:27 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > Note: GCC takes exactly the same approach as LLVM here, for exactly > the reason chris specifies. > In fact, until we started local SSA updating (which is now many years > ago, but ...), dominance frontier calculation for ssa updating was in

...https://www.tinc-vpn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinc > <https://www.tinc-vpn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinc> > > <https://www.tinc-vpn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinc > <https://www.tinc-vpn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinc>> > > -- Cytronics & Melware Weinbergstrasse 39, 55296 Loerzweiler / Germany Tel: +49 6138 99998-100 Fax: +49 6138 99998-109 VoIP: sip:info at melware.net mailto:info at melware.de http://www.melware.de

Hi, Diego, Thanks for your quick reply. Inserting a copy instruction may not work here because I have a limitation of virtual register number. I need to assign registers with ssa form to registers without ssa form. I will look the source code you point out. Thanks Xiangyang On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015

...are printed. - set dnid on incoming call. - catch errors in wrong dialstring. - set correct DIALSTATUS and HANGUPCAUSE. - set PROGRESS and PROCEEDING when the network signals them. - increased voice send buffer a little bit. - fixed seg-fault when unallocated number was dialed. Have fun Armin -- Cytronics & Melware Weinbergstrasse 39 55296 Loerzweiler / Germany Tel: +49 6138 98110-0 Fax: +49 6138 98110-9 mailto:info@melware.de http://www.melware.de

Chris, I think some clarifications and examples would be helpful. - LLVM is in SSA. It is in SSA before alias analysis has been >>>> performed. With OA, it has been mentioned that the SSA generation >>>> is >>>> incorrect because it doesn't take alias analysis information into >>>> account. This seems logical, because the definition of

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Michelle Strout wrote: > Those of us working on the OpenAnalysis project have been looking at > LLVM recently (excellent job on the website BTW). Thanks! I'm just one of the many people who have worked on it though, the praise belongs to them as much as it does to me. :) > This includes researchers at Rice, Argonne, and LLNL. Great! > John Mellor-Crummey

Dear Chuck, I haven't read all of the details, but it seems that what you need to do is to clone defs before you clone any uses of the def. To do that, you want to iterate over the instructions in dominator-tree order. To do that, you first construct the dominator tree (there is an LLVM analysis pass that does that). Then, you iterate over the basic blocks in the dominator tree from

...an/listinfo/tinc > > <https://www.tinc-vpn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinc> > > > <https://www.tinc-vpn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinc > > <https://www.tinc-vpn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinc>> > > > > > > > -- > Cytronics & Melware > Weinbergstrasse 39, 55296 Loerzweiler / Germany > Tel: +49 6138 99998-100 > Fax: +49 6138 99998-109 > VoIP: sip:info at melware.net > mailto:info at melware.de > http://www.melware.de > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... U...

On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:27 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > Note: GCC takes exactly the same approach as LLVM here, for exactly > the reason chris specifies. > In fact, until we started local SSA updating (which is now many years > ago, but ...), dominance frontier calculation for ssa updating was in > the top 10 profile functions for GCC compiles of large source files. > I had tried a

While working on my optimization pass (a Function Pass), I try to replicate a call instruction and insert it at some earlier location (similar to LICM). However, the instruction I am trying to replicate has dependencies on an uncertain number of instructions that are used to generate an address. A simple example (IR segment): define void @foo() nounwind { entry: %a = alloca i32, align 4;