search for: print_int

...ensive to compute and keep valid. For example, if any instruction were valid to reference up to the first throwing instruction, then re-ordering the loads in the following code would break SSA: bb: unwinds to %lp %x1 = throwing load i32* %v1 %x2 = throwing load i32* %v2 ... lp: call void @print_int(i32 %x1) Put another way, this would change SSA well-formedness from a local problem to a global one. Of course, this will be a very challenging change regardless of dominance criteria because of the imprecision of edges. For example, we would not be able to mem2reg %v in the following example w...

On Nov 27, 2010, at 4:57 PM, John McCall wrote: > On Nov 25, 2010, at 3:03 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >> I'm pointing out that if the invoke instruction >> is removed and catch information is attached to entire basic blocks, then if no >> care is taken then it is perfectly possible to use %x before it is defined as >> explained in my previous email, blowing up the

...d. For example, if any instruction were valid to reference up to the first throwing instruction, then re-ordering the loads in the following code would break SSA: > > bb: unwinds to %lp > %x1 = throwing load i32* %v1 > %x2 = throwing load i32* %v2 > ... > lp: > call void @print_int(i32 %x1) > > Put another way, this would change SSA well-formedness from a local problem to a global one. > > Of course, this will be a very challenging change regardless of dominance criteria because of the imprecision of edges. For example, we would not be able to mem2reg %v in the...

On Nov 25, 2010, at 3:03 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > I'm pointing out that if the invoke instruction > is removed and catch information is attached to entire basic blocks, then if no > care is taken then it is perfectly possible to use %x before it is defined as > explained in my previous email, blowing up the entire LLVM system. Clearly the > solution is to not allow this by not