search for: erosa

2008/4/10, David Erosa <david.erosa at gmail.com>: > Public bug reported: > > Binary package hint: nut > > After updating to last nut package (2.2.1-2.1ubuntu6), the megatec_usb > driver seems to be working, except for the charge percentage: > > $ /lib/nut/megatec_usb -DDDDD -a SAI >...

...VM has the capabilities to do everything that you are trying to >re-implement. >2) Have you looked at the C backend? It recreates loops. It may not >create "for" loops but you can hack on it to do that. I wonder if you mean "goto elimination technique" by Ana Maria Erosa ( http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/317208.html ) for this? >3) The way you are converting out of SSA is wrong. You will suffer >from lost copies. You should look at using demotePHI(). see include/ >llvm/Transforms/Utils/Local.h I use LLVM 1.9 where I can't find demotePHI(). Is it a fun...

...rote: > Ok. Note that LLVM can represent irreducible loops. You can handle > this through code duplication. > -Chris If you are willing to invest more effort into a more complicated analysis, in many cases you can even avoid code duplication. See this paper for details: @inproceedings{erosa94taming, author = {Ana M. Erosa and Laurie J. Hendren}, title = {Taming Control Flow: A Structured Approach to Eliminating Goto Statements.}, booktitle = {ICCL}, year = {1994}, pages = {229--240}, } Cheers, -- Domagoj Babic...

>> It has a section on "structural analysis" that you will find useful. >> >> Why do you want "for statements"? >> > > Thank you for this info, Chris. > I'm doing this 'cause I'm making a backend for a virtual machine > assembly has an instruction which is very similar to 'for' statement. > I know this seems quite

...n many cases you can even avoid code duplication. See this paper for > details: We implemented this in GCC early on in the days of GIMPLE, and while theoretically it removes code duplication, in practice it made the code take significantly more space and run slower. :) > > @inproceedings{erosa94taming, > author = {Ana M. Erosa and > Laurie J. Hendren}, > title = {Taming Control Flow: A Structured Approach to Eliminating > Goto Statements.}, > booktitle = {ICCL}, > year = {1994}, > pages = {229--240}, > } &gt...

---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:23:39 -0700 >From: Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] constructing 'for' statement from LLVM bitcode >To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > > >On Aug 24, 2007, at 10:07 PM, Seung Jae Lee wrote: > >> Do you have any idea on how I can construct

Hi, I like Eli approach here. Phases like SimplifyCFG and various loop transformations are just to useful to cleanup code and generate much high quality output. If we look at the passes, I hope we might be able to quantify what changes they make. My hope is that since the incoming graph is reducible that it doesn't cost that much after running these phases to make them reducible

...lse² dependencies if necessary to allow optimizations to be applied without changing the semantics. 3. Implement some structure of to the side that represents this high-level flow. Thoughts? Ben [1] "Taming Control Flow: A structured approach to eliminating goto statements", A.M. Erosa and L.J. Hedren, ICCL 1994 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080811/562dc304/attachment.html>