search for: idome

Hi Daniel, I mean "*As a set*, B + C dominate D". On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > When you say collectively, 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

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Daniel, >> >> I mean "*As a set*, B + C dominate D". >> >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> >> wrote:

Hi Daniel, Thanks a lot for all these explanation, I will try it out. Hongbin On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> >> wrote:

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>

Like I said, i'm nearly positive there is a much faster way, as the sets are mostly shared except in the cyclic case, and in all reducible cyclic cases, removal of back-arcs does not affect dominance (because in any reducible flowgraph, v dominates u whenever u,v is a back-arc) On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > >

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

I have a virtual setup using LDAP where the a user has an email address at 2 domain names. 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

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

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:

> 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;

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

Hi Daniel, Daniel Berlin wrote: > /* Add fake edges to the function exit for any non constant and non > noreturn calls (or noreturn calls with EH/abnormal edges), > volatile inline assembly in the bitmap of blocks specified by > BLOCKS > or to the whole CFG if BLOCKS is zero. > ... > > The goal is to expose cases in

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 >

Hi! while trying to use llvm::DominatorTreeBase on a custom graph that has nothing to do with llvm::BasicBlock I ran into some difficulties, because llvm::DominatorTreeBase calls e.g. getParent()->front() directly on the nodes and uses llvm::Inverse which forced me to implement my GraphTraits also for Inverse. This could be solved using a compile time abstraction of Graph instread of

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