search for: idom

...tively, you mean "would dominate it if considered a > single block together? > > IE > > A > / \ > B C > \ / > D > > As a set, B + C dominate D. > > The set you are looking for there is (i believe): > > For each predecessor, walk the idom tree until you hit NCA of all > predecessors. > What do you mean by NCA? > While you walk it, place all nodes on each branch in a set. > > Any set that collectively dominates D must contain at least one member > from each of these set, or be on the idom path between NCA and roo...

...E >>> >>> A >>> / \ >>> B C >>> \ / >>> D >>> >>> As a set, B + C dominate D. >>> >>> The set you are looking for there is (i believe): >>> >>> For each predecessor, walk the idom tree until you hit NCA of all >>> predecessors. >>> >> "For each predecessor" do you mean "For each predecessor of the basic blocks in the set"? I.e. for each predecessor of B and C in this example. Thanks Hongbin > What do you mean by NCA? >>...

...gt; B C >>>>> \ / >>>>> D >>>>> >>>>> As a set, B + C dominate D. >>>>> >>>>> The set you are looking for there is (i believe): >>>>> >>>>> For each predecessor, walk the idom tree until you hit NCA of all >>>>> predecessors. >>>>> >>>> "For each predecessor" do you mean "For each predecessor of the basic >> blocks in the set"? I.e. for each predecessor of B and C in this example. >> > > No,...

Hi, Is there any way to quickly test if a set of basic block collectively dominate another basic block? Thanks Hongbin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170425/b9336a6d/attachment.html>

...gt; \ / >>>>>> D >>>>>> >>>>>> As a set, B + C dominate D. >>>>>> >>>>>> The set you are looking for there is (i believe): >>>>>> >>>>>> For each predecessor, walk the idom tree until you hit NCA of all >>>>>> predecessors. >>>>>> >>>>> "For each predecessor" do you mean "For each predecessor of the basic >>> blocks in the set"? I.e. for each predecessor of B and C in this example. >&gt...

...rithm in the paper that computes dominance frontiers touching only the nodes that are *actually in* the dominance frontier :) The algorithm in the cytron/et al paper looks like this: for each X in a bottom-up traversal of the dominator tree do DF(X) = empty for each Y in Successors(X) if (idom(Y) != X) then DF(X) += Y for each Z in DomChildren(X) for each Y in DF(Z) if (idom(Y) != X then DF(X) += Y You can see that this does more comparisons than strictly necessary. OTOH, the algorithm by Ferrante that Harvey gives is: for each B in all basic blocks if the length of Predece...

...ames. The want the mail kept separate but want to use the same password. I use the mail attribute and insert both email addresses. This works perfectly with deliver but opens the wrong Inbox when I IMAP. Is there a way to disable this in the conf file? host dovecot: auth(default): auth(jeff at idom.net,::ffff:127.0.0.1): username changed jeff at idom.net -> jeff at jdom.net

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90887 Bug ID: 90887 Summary: PhiMovesPass in register allocator broken Product: Mesa Version: git Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Drivers/DRI/nouveau Assignee: nouveau at

David, I think my explanation is not clear, my front-end did NOTt generate 'llvm.memcpy' it generate LL code that after use of LLVM 'opt' get transformed by 'loop-idom' pass into an 'llvm.memcpy' for an overlapping loop: static void t0(int n) { int i; for (i=0; i<n; i++) result[i+1] = result[i]; } Then 'llc' expanded llvm.memcpy into a sequence of load/store that where performed out-of-order and thus the final code was incorre...

What I wish to do is to have a construct like this in a view: <%= link_to_if <some test>, "New Model View", new_model_path -%> <some test> has to return true if new_model_path is defined and false otherwise. What is the proper idiom to do this in rails 2? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received

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

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 6, 2012, at 5:08 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > >>>> >>>> It's very like SSA construction, but must make provision >>>> testing anti dependences.  I had planned to use dominance frontiers to >>>> guide placement of phi nodes, as usual. >>>

Hi all, Is there a way to disable use of specific optimization pass from opt at command line level ? I would like to do something like: opt -O2 -no-loop-idiom ... And I want to this to disable all invocations of loop-idom optimization, but keep all other -O2 opts. Thanks for your help Best Regards Sbb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111115/0a22e4ab/attachment.html>

> For instance, I figured out that loop-idiom pass has a BUG in > LLVM 2.9, a llvm.memcpy is generated for an overlapping memory region and > then x86 backend reorder loads/store thus generating a BUG. Just for the record it seems this is a bug in your frontend, not in the LLVM backend. The memcpy intrinsic, like the standard memcpy function, requires that the regions be non-overlapping:

On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 10:03:37AM +0100, Seb wrote: > I think my explanation is not clear, my front-end did NOTt generate > 'llvm.memcpy' it generate LL code that after use of LLVM 'opt' get > transformed by 'loop-idom' pass into an 'llvm.memcpy' for an overlapping > loop: > > static void > t0(int n) > { > int i; > for (i=0; i<n; i++) > result[i+1] = result[i]; > } Do you really want to assign result[0] to everything? I wonder how much work it is to each th...

Hi, guys, what is the interface for finding the immediate dominator of a machine basic block in LLVM 2.1? I found some methods to check if a node dominates other in llvm::MachineDominatorTree, but I was looking for something like: MachineBasicBlock * mbb = ... MachineBasicBlock * iDom = XXX->getImmediateDominator(mbb); is there something similar? best, Fernando

...> v > C (exit) > > > Here, we have A dominates B dominates C > > So the dominator tree is > A > | > v > B > | > v > C > > Now, if you add an edge from A to C, you have: > > A dominates B > Neither B nor A dominate C (C's idom is somewhere above, so it's in a > sibling tree somewhere). Not sure I understand this example -- won't C's new idom be A? The new graph is this, right: A -> C A -> B B -> C ? > > > IE > > A C > | > B > > > In GCC, there is...

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Daniel Berlin wrote: > > Don't we have the same problems for "exit(0)" > > > > > > This is a noreturn call, so yes, iit has another hidden control > > flow-side-effect of a slightly different kind. GCC models it as an extra >

...goal of the whole stuff, the simplification of DominatorTreeBase::recalculate with some pseudocode: void recalculate(Graph& graph) { reset(); this->Vertex.push_back(0); // Initialize roots this->Roots = graph.getRoots(); iterate over roots { this->IDoms[root] = 0; this->DomTreeNodes[root] = 0; } Calculate(*this, graph); } Note that the flag IsPostDominators is gone. Where necessary it can be replaced by checking if the graph has exactly one root. -Jochen

Hello Devang, answers are interleaved 2011/12/7 Devang Patel <dpatel at apple.com> > Hello, > > On Dec 7, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Seb wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I would like to add an option for LLVM 'opt' to disable a specific > optimization pass from command line. > > > > The idea is to have something like: > > > > opt -O2