search for: rpo

...> So, this is in fact, just using the ranks reassociation would normally use, to do splitting :) That is, even outside of geps, you end up with chains of operations where, if you moved the operands around, you would expose loop-invariant calculation. Reassociation builds a rank map ordered by RPO traversal of the CFG, and uses it to place operations at the same rank into the same expression. This guarantees deeper loops have higher ranks. For your purposes, if you have it calculated already, you could just use loop depth instead of RPO ordering, since you only care about invariantness (the...

Background on setup Here is some basic background of my setup I have 3 domains setup running over a IPSEC tunnel over the Internet with one PDC BDC and some file servers at each location all running samba (I am sorry I do not have the version number in front of me for samba) from SUSE enterprise 10 using the LDAP backend. There is a trust setup between all the domains and the IPSEC tunnels is

...ociation would > normally use, to do splitting :) > > > That is, even outside of geps, you end up with chains of operations > where, if you moved the operands around, you would expose > loop-invariant calculation. > > > > Reassociation builds a rank map ordered by RPO traversal of the CFG, > and uses it to place operations at the same rank into the same > expression. This guarantees deeper loops have higher ranks. > For your purposes, if you have it calculated already, you could just > use loop depth instead of RPO ordering, since you only care about...

...dominator tree and build a work list by visiting all children, similar or the same as in MachineCSE. Now I see the following behaviour: when I visit the nodes of the root (A in this case), its children have the nice property that B and C come before D. This is actually what I want, but is this on purpose, or not? It is kind of hard to proof that B and C come before D when iterating through the children of the root in this dominator tree. Is it safe to assume that this always happens? If you look at dominator theory only, then D can just as well come before C, since they are on the same level, na...

Got my first round of IP500s in today. Anybody have any example sip.cfg files they'd like to share? Tim Jackson Network Engineer Angelina County, Texas (936)639-4827 office (936)414-6723 mobile -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20040928/a923e094/attachment.htm

The GVN algorithm used in LLVM currently (I'm rewriting it) is the basic hash based RPO algorithm. The new one i'm writing is based on http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=512536 (see https://github.com/dberlin/llvm-gvn-rewrite) LLVM has different algorithms for both scalar PRE and load PRE. They are basically variants of standard PRE algorithms transformed into SSA, but with some...

...host=dynamic context=local nat=yes canreinvite=no disallow=all allow=g729 dtmfmode=rfc2833 Sip debug: headers, 0 lines Retransmitting #4 (NAT): SIP/2.0 407 Proxy Authentication Required Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.253.149:5060;branch=z9hG4bK31323424795a48;received=60.64.250.254;rport=5060 From: <sip:205@60.64.250.253;user=phone>;tag=C8355813679C716AFCA To: <sip:202@60.64.250.253>;tag=as3bcc72b4 Call-ID: 24472-D1B9-1FA6-8959-E629AA6722FB@192.168.253.149 CSeq: 1 INVITE User-Agent: Asterisk PBX Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER Contact: <sip:2...

...hine > state/latencies, features a more modular design etc. > > The SelectionDAG schedulers are still here because: > - We need to bring the selection graph back into a linear order for the MI > representation. While we would like the SelectionDAG scheduler to be as > simple as an RPO walk, it also does: > - Duplicating/Rematerializing of flag producing nodes in order to avoid > unnecessary spilling/restoring of flag registers (which is an expensive > operation on most architectures). > > Scheduling for any other goals in the selection dag scheduler and using >...

Anyone have any creative solutions for near-synchronous replication between 2 ZFS hosts? Near-synchronous, meaning RPO X--->0 I realize performance will take a hit. Thanks, Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20091026/765672c8/attachment.html>

Hi, I was looking into how SelectionDAG scheduling is done in LLVM for different backends, and I noticed that for the X86 backend, even though it sets scheduling preferences of ILP or RegisterPressure depending on architecture, in the end, it ends up using source scheduling. I realized this is because it overrides enableMachineScheduler to return true. Is there any specific reasons why it was

Does ZFS support any type of remote mirroring? It seems at present my only two options to achieve this would be Sun Cluster or Availability Suite. I thought that this functionality was in the works, but I haven''t heard anything lately. Thanks! Aaron Newcomb http://opennewsshow.org http://thesourceshow.org This message posted from opensolaris.org

...to use > e-SSA/SSI. The current code is slow, is very limited in scope (w/ somewhat > arbitrary throttling), and is too complicated. > Note that with patches to do LVI in DFS postorder instead of BFS order, it actually should be close to ideal :) If CVP moves forward and queries LVI in RPO order, and LVI is doing PO, it should be as close to O(1) work per LVI call as you can get. Of course, it's still a mess, code wise, but ... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170205/3fac840...

...gt; Probably the best place is LICM itself... only loop transformations > are aware whether something is loop-invariant. After considering this some more it does seem like Reassociate is a good place for this to go. While it's not explicitly aware of loops, it uses a ranking based on an RPO traversal of the CFG to give higher ranks to values the deeper they are in loop nests. LICM will then be enabled to lift things out based on the reassociation. > Although, I'm not completely sure the transformation is safe, at least > the way you're stating it; unlike add, GEP has...

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > Hi Davide, > > On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 4:19 AM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: >> Although originally I wasn't, I'm increasingly convinced this is the >> right path forward (at least in the beginning), i.e. strip undef >> handling entirely. I tried

Hi Mark, It is not clear to me at all that preventing the merging is the right solution. There are a large number of analysis, including alias analysis, and optimizations that use GetUnderlyingObject, and related routines to search back through GEPs. They only do this up to some small finite depth (six, IIRC). So reducing the GEP depth is likely the right solution for InstCombine (which has the

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> wrote: > The computation of %base then becomes loop-invariant and can be lifted out. > > What's the best way to add this optimization to LLVM? Probably the best place is LICM itself... only loop transformations are aware whether something is loop-invariant. Although, I'm not completely

Is there a way in LLVM , using which I can get Call graph SCCs in reverse post order in a FunctionPass object? -Balpreet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20060501/f34b3700/attachment.html>

> On Sep 21, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > > // For all predecessors of this MBB, find the set of VarLocs that > // can be joined. > for (auto p : MBB.predecessors()) { > auto OL = OutLocs.find(p); > // Join is null in case of empty OutLocs from any of the pred. > if (OL == OutLocs.end()) >

As far as I know, there is none. Pretty much every analysis or transform on EBBs can be extended to work on the dominator tree, which is what LLVM prefers. Cameron On Apr 8, 2013, at 9:53 PM, Bill He <wh3 at rice.edu> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am trying to find a sample pass that works on extended basic blocks. Any suggestion or help is very much appreciated. > > Thanks in

Hi all, I am trying to find a sample pass that works on extended basic blocks. Any suggestion or help is very much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Best, Weibo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130408/5492103d/attachment.html>