search for: quich

...argued against this approach in favour of the mini-basic-blocks approach, in which you have lots of basic blocks which under the hood share common info to reduce memory usage. However Chris convinced me that in fact not that many places really use that there is a single exit, and that only a wimpy quiche eater would shrink at the idea of auditing all of LLVM! :) Ciao, Duncan.

Not sure how much this will interest people but I don''t have a blog so I''m posting something I threw together today cause I think it might be useful. In what little free time I have I''ve been wanting to put together a Rails/Ferret based restful dictionary. So I finally got a chance to get started today so the first thing I wanted to do was implement a metaphone

...h > in favour of the mini-basic-blocks approach, in which you have lots > of basic blocks which under the hood share common info to reduce > memory > usage. However Chris convinced me that in fact not that many places > really use that there is a single exit, and that only a wimpy quiche > eater would shrink at the idea of auditing all of LLVM! :) > > Ciao, > > Duncan. > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmde...

...= and the assertion: While deleting: int%Billy Use still stuck around after Def is destroyed: ret int %Billy opt: Value.cpp:51: virtual llvm::Value::~Value(): Assertion `Uses.begin() == Uses.end() &&"Uses remain when a value is destroyed!"' failed. Aborted nadir at quiche:~/src/llvm/lib/Transforms/LICM$ fg emacs LICM.cpp ===================================== ===================================== Any help is appreciated, Nadir Kiyanclar kiyancla at uiuc.edu

...i p ----- When this was solved, there where other problems, but those are also fixed in the patch... I have yet to actually RUN Samba with this, but it compiles and installs correctly... -------------- next part -------------- -- Clinton Ft. Bragg Ft. Meade PLO Albanian cracking 767 congress NSA quiche NORAD supercomputer security pits domestic disruption [See http://www.aclu.org/echelonwatch/index.html for more about this] [Or http://www.europarl.eu.int/tempcom/echelon/pdf/rapport_echelon_en.pdf] If neither of these works, try http://www.aclu.org and search for echelon.

On Mar 27, 2008, at 11:15 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > I have a new plan for handling 'unwinds to' in the control flow graph > and dominance. > > Just as a quick recap the problem I encountered is how to deal > instructions in a block being used as operands in the unwind dest. > Such > as this: > > bb1: unwinds to %cleanup > call void @foo() ; might throw,

> In LLVM the rule is that an instruction must be dominated by its > operands. ... > We already have this issue with invoke. Consider: > > bb1: > %x = invoke i32 @f() to label %normal unwind label %unwind > normal: > phi i32 [%x, %bb1] > ret i32 %x > unwind: > phi i32 [%x, %bb1] ; illegal > ret i32 %x > > The PHI in %unwind must mention

Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On 2008-03-29, at 00:57, Nick Lewycky wrote: > >> Gordon Henriksen wrote: >> >>> What blocks would a phi node in %catch require for a case like this? >>> >>> define i8 @f(i1 %b) { >>> entry: >>> b label %try >>> try: unwinds to %catch >>> b i1 %b, label %then, label %else

I have a new plan for handling 'unwinds to' in the control flow graph and dominance. Just as a quick recap the problem I encountered is how to deal instructions in a block being used as operands in the unwind dest. Such as this: bb1: unwinds to %cleanup call void @foo() ; might throw, might not %x = add i32 %y, %z call void @foo() ; might throw, might not ret void cleanup: