Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "domiantor".
2008 Sep 19
2
[LLVMdev] PassManager Dependence Question
...gt; (deleting instructions should be ok),
>>
>> At this point isn't dominator info dirty ? In other words, Y in your
>> example is invalidated here.
>
> I don't think so because the control flow graph hasn't necessarily
> been
> updated.
Well, one of the domiantor info interface is
bool dominates(Instruction *A, Instruction *B);
This will return invalid results. So yes, the info is dirty.
> If the whole dominator information is recalculated when only
> Instructions are manipulated, that's rather wasteful.
This is a question of how to update and...
2008 Sep 19
0
[LLVMdev] PassManager Dependence Question
...> >>
> >> At this point isn't dominator info dirty ? In other words, Y in your
> >> example is invalidated here.
> >
> > I don't think so because the control flow graph hasn't necessarily
> > been
> > updated.
>
> Well, one of the domiantor info interface is
> bool dominates(Instruction *A, Instruction *B);
> This will return invalid results. So yes, the info is dirty.
Not right now it isn't. Right now dominators simply iterates through
instructions. In my proposed scheme, it would be dirty only in the sense that
the n...
2008 Sep 19
2
[LLVMdev] PassManager Dependence Question
On Sep 19, 2008, at 4:03 PM, David Greene wrote:
>> Well, one of the domiantor info interface is
>> bool dominates(Instruction *A, Instruction *B);
>> This will return invalid results. So yes, the info is dirty.
>
> Not right now it isn't. Right now dominators simply iterates through
> instructions.
Aha... OK.
> In my proposed scheme, it would...
2008 Sep 19
0
[LLVMdev] PassManager Dependence Question
On Friday 19 September 2008 17:28, Devang Patel wrote:
> On Sep 19, 2008, at 3:20 PM, David Greene wrote:
> > On Friday 19 September 2008 17:11, David Greene wrote:
> >> What I'd really like to do is have Pass X re-run but not Pass Y.
> >> Pass Y
> >> only uses some bookkeeping from Pass X to speed itself up. Having
> >> Pass X
> >> not
2008 Sep 19
2
[LLVMdev] PassManager Dependence Question
On Sep 19, 2008, at 3:20 PM, David Greene wrote:
> On Friday 19 September 2008 17:11, David Greene wrote:
>
>> What I'd really like to do is have Pass X re-run but not Pass Y.
>> Pass Y
>> only uses some bookkeeping from Pass X to speed itself up. Having
>> Pass X
>> not re-run could cause Pass Y to give wrong answers, but once Pass
>> X is