search for: gepis

The enlosed patch for IndVarSimplify.cpp works even when the pointer increment is deeply nested wrt pointer initialization, but note that it needs to have loop structures preserved, as in the following: int A[3000000], B[20000], C[100], Z; volatile int I, J, K; int main() { int i, j, k, *a, *b, *c; for ( a = &A[0], i = 0; i != 300; i++ ) { I++;

Hi, Is there any standard pass or something that can fuse chained GEPIs? I.e. turning b = getelementptr a, 10, 1 c = getelementptr b, 0, 3 d = getelementptr c, 0, 5 into: d = getelementptr a, 10, 1, 3, 5 In our case this would greatly simplify some analysis passes, at the moment we have to trace back a gepi-chain and extract all the indices manually (the origin...

I now understand that IndVarSimplify.cpp is capable of reproducing array references when the pointer initialization from the array address is found inside the immediately enclosing loop, such that in the following code: int A[20000], B[100], Z; int main() { int i, j, *a, *b; for ( a = &A[0], i = 0; i != 200; i++ ) for ( b = &B[0], j = 0; j != 100; j++

I am new to LLVM and couldn't find any llvm-user list, so I am posting my user question here, sorry. I am trying to create a simple "puts" call accepting the static string, with the code below. The last line (CallInst::Create) fails with an assert: "Calling a function with a bad signature!" Because the type of function is void(u8*) and the argument supplied is:

On Apr 29, 2008, at 1:27 AM, Gabor Greif wrote: > Hi all, > > I have reported more than enough about the space savings achieved > and the associated costs, here comes the current patch for review. > > Since this one is substantially smaller than the previous one, I did > not cut it in pieces. The front part is about headers and the rest > the .cpp and other files. Hi

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Naftali Schwartz wrote: > I now understand that IndVarSimplify.cpp is capable of reproducing array > references when the pointer initialization from the array address is found > inside the immediately enclosing loop, such that in the following code: Ok. > int A[20000], B[100], Z; > int main() > { > int i, j, *a, *b; > for ( a =

Hi Johannes, > Now that reasoning works from a conceptual standpoint only for > non-inbounds GEPs, I think. From a practical standpoint my above > description will probably make sure everything works out just fine (see > also my rephrased answer down below!). I say this because I think the > following lang-ref passage makes sure everything, not only memory > accesses, involving

Hi, >>> I see. Is there a quick answer to the questions why you need inbounds >>> GEPs in that case? Can't you just use non-inbounds GEPs if you know you >>> might not have a valid base ptr and "optimize" it to inbounds once that >>> is proven? >> >> You mean on the Rust side? We emit GEPi for field accesses and array indexing.

Hi all, I have reported more than enough about the space savings achieved and the associated costs, here comes the current patch for review. Since this one is substantially smaller than the previous one, I did not cut it in pieces. The front part is about headers and the rest the .cpp and other files. Cheers, Gabor -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified

Hi Johannes, > From the Lang-Ref statement > > "With the inbounds keyword, the result value of the GEP is undefined > if the address is outside the actual underlying allocated object and > not the address one-past-the-end." > > I'd argue that the actual offset value (here 0) is irrelevant. The GEP > value is undefined if inbounds is present and the

I am confused by this bit of code in instcombine: 09789 if (GetElementPtrInst *GEPI = dyn_cast<GetElementPtrInst>(Op)) { 09790 const Value *GEPI0 = GEPI->getOperand(0); 09791 // TODO: Consider a target hook for valid address spaces for this xform. 09792 if (isa<ConstantPointerNull>(GEPI0) && 09793

> On Dec 8, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > Partially answering my own question, in general these are not > equivalent because LLVM allows for pointers in different address > spaces to have different sizes. However, are they equivalent if > pointers in addrspace(1) have the same size as pointers in > addrspace(0)? > >

Hi Johannes, >> So, the thinking here is: LLVM cannot exclude the possibility of an >> object of size 0 existing at any given address. The pointer returned >> by "GEPi p 0" then would be one-past-the-end of such a 0-sized object. >> Thus, "GEPi p 0" is the identitiy function for any p, it will not >> return poison. > > I don't see the

John, I have looked at the SAFECode and thought following sould work if (isa<Constant>(I.getOperand(0))) { Out << "*** operand 0 is a constant ******"; if (Instruction *operandI = dyn_cast<Instruction>(I.getOperand(0))) { Out << "********operand is an instruction ****"; if (GetElementPtrInst *gepI =

Morten, I've applied these patches. Thanks for the updates! Reid. On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 01:26, Morten Ofstad wrote: > Hi, > > when I updated the sources today there were several small problems that > stopped the windows version from compiling, here are the patches > > m. > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Index:

Hi, when I updated the sources today there were several small problems that stopped the windows version from compiling, here are the patches m. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: win32patches.txt URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20041115/34634455/attachment.txt>

Is copy.0 semantically equivalent to copy.1 in the following example? define void @copy.0(i8 addrspace(1)* addrspace(1)* %src, i8 addrspace(1)* addrspace(1)* %dst) { entry: %val = load i8 addrspace(1)* addrspace(1)* %src store i8 addrspace(1)* %val, i8 addrspace(1)* addrspace(1)* %dst ret void } define void @copy.1(i8 addrspace(1)* addrspace(1)* %src, i8 addrspace(1)* addrspace(1)* %dst)

On 1/21/2011 10:46 PM, Surinder wrote: > John, > > I have looked at the SAFECode and thought following sould work > > if (isa<Constant>(I.getOperand(0))) > { Out<< "*** operand 0 is a constant ******"; > if (Instruction *operandI = dyn_cast<Instruction>(I.getOperand(0))) > { Out<<

Dear useRs: We would like to introduce the "pedgene" package, version 1.2, available now on CRAN, with a brief manual available as a vignette: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/pedgene/index.html The pedgene package performs gene-level kernel and burden association tests with disease status and continuous response for pedigree data, as described in our recent paper: Schaid, D.

Dear useRs: We would like to introduce the "pedgene" package, version 1.2, available now on CRAN, with a brief manual available as a vignette: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/pedgene/index.html The pedgene package performs gene-level kernel and burden association tests with disease status and continuous response for pedigree data, as described in our recent paper: Schaid, D.