search for: nodeblock

...store [4 x float] %20, [4 x float]* %0 ret void ; <label>:21 ; preds = %2 br label %15 } ---------- I apply the LowerSwitch optimization pass to this code, which transforms the switch into the following series of branches: ---------- br label %NodeBlock NodeBlock: ; preds = %2 %Pivot = icmp slt i32 %13, 100000 ; <i1> [#uses=1] br i1 %Pivot, label %LeafBlock, label %LeafBlock5 LeafBlock5: ; preds = %NodeBlock %SwitchLeaf6 = icmp eq i32 %13, 1000...

Is there a way (without writing a pass to manually copy the block, etc) to eliminate this type of CFG creation? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120403/c00c377d/attachment.html>

hi Ryan, Any example? best regards ether On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > Is there a way (without writing a pass to manually copy the block, etc) to > eliminate this type of CFG creation? > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu

...=1] switch ubyte %c8, label %loop_step [ ubyte 97, label %ret_true ubyte 98, label %ret_true ] Unfortunately, this generates really weird code on the LLVM 1.6 PowerPC backend: LBB_matches_1: ; regex6 lbz r4, 0(r3) LBB_matches_2: ; NodeBlock rlwinm r5, r4, 0, 24, 31 cmplwi cr0, r5, 98 blt cr0, LBB_matches_4 ; LeafBlock LBB_matches_3: ; LeafBlock1 rlwinm r4, r4, 0, 24, 31 cmpwi cr0, r4, 98 beq cr0, LBB_matches_8 ; ret_true b LBB_matches_5 ; NewDefault LBB_matches_4: ; Le...

On Mar 17, 2006, at 7:54 AM, Eric Kidd wrote: > Unfortunately, this generates really weird code on the LLVM 1.6 > PowerPC backend: > > LBB_matches_1: ; regex6 > lbz r4, 0(r3) > LBB_matches_2: ; NodeBlock > rlwinm r5, r4, 0, 24, 31 > cmplwi cr0, r5, 98 > blt cr0, LBB_matches_4 ; LeafBlock > LBB_matches_3: ; LeafBlock1 > rlwinm r4, r4, 0, 24, 31 > cmpwi cr0, r4, 98 > beq cr0, LBB_matches_8 ; ret_true > b LBB_matches_5...

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Eric Kidd wrote: > Hello! I'm compiling code which uses pointers as iterators. For some > reason--probably a silly misunderstanding of the docs--I can't eliminate > duplicate pointer loads. I'll probably figure this out eventually, but if > somebody else sees the answer instantly, I certainly won't complain. :-) There are no stupid questions.

Hello! I'm compiling code which uses pointers as iterators. For some reason--probably a silly misunderstanding of the docs--I can't eliminate duplicate pointer loads. I'll probably figure this out eventually, but if somebody else sees the answer instantly, I certainly won't complain. :-) Here are the optimizers I'm running: opt -f -simplifycfg -dce -instcombine