search for: safe_r

Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "safe_r".

2011 Oct 06
2
[LLVMdev] A potential bug
Hi all, There might be a bug in DeadStoreElimination.cpp. This pass eliminates stores backwards aggressively in an end BB. It does not check dependencies on stores in an end BB though. For example, in this code snippet: ... 1. %sum.safe_r47.pre-phi = phi i64* [ %sum.safe_r47.pre, %entry.for.end_crit_edge ], [ %sum.safe_r42, %for.body ] 2. %call9 = call i32 @gettimeofday(%struct.timeval* %end, %struct.timeval* null) nounwind 3. %0 = bitcast %struct.timeval* %start to i64* // eliminated by HandleEndBlock in DeadStoreElimin...
2011 Oct 06
2
[LLVMdev] A potential bug
...: >> Hi all, >> >> There might be a bug in DeadStoreElimination.cpp. This pass eliminates >> stores backwards aggressively in an end BB. It does not check dependencies >> on stores in an end BB though. For example, in this code snippet: >>   ... >> 1.  %sum.safe_r47.pre-phi = phi i64* [ %sum.safe_r47.pre, >> %entry.for.end_crit_edge ], [ %sum.safe_r42, %for.body ] >> 2.  %call9 = call i32 @gettimeofday(%struct.timeval* %end, %struct.timeval* >> null) nounwind >> 3.  %0 = bitcast %struct.timeval* %start to i64*           // eliminated...
2011 Oct 06
0
[LLVMdev] A potential bug
...ngbin at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > There might be a bug in DeadStoreElimination.cpp. This pass eliminates > stores backwards aggressively in an end BB. It does not check dependencies > on stores in an end BB though. For example, in this code snippet: >   ... > 1.  %sum.safe_r47.pre-phi = phi i64* [ %sum.safe_r47.pre, > %entry.for.end_crit_edge ], [ %sum.safe_r42, %for.body ] > 2.  %call9 = call i32 @gettimeofday(%struct.timeval* %end, %struct.timeval* > null) nounwind > 3.  %0 = bitcast %struct.timeval* %start to i64*           // eliminated by > HandleEn...
2011 Oct 06
0
[LLVMdev] A potential bug
...t; >> There might be a bug in DeadStoreElimination.cpp. This pass eliminates > >> stores backwards aggressively in an end BB. It does not check > dependencies > >> on stores in an end BB though. For example, in this code snippet: > >> ... > >> 1. %sum.safe_r47.pre-phi = phi i64* [ %sum.safe_r47.pre, > >> %entry.for.end_crit_edge ], [ %sum.safe_r42, %for.body ] > >> 2. %call9 = call i32 @gettimeofday(%struct.timeval* %end, > %struct.timeval* > >> null) nounwind > >> 3. %0 = bitcast %struct.timeval* %start to i64*...
2011 Oct 06
1
[LLVMdev] A potential bug
...bug in DeadStoreElimination.cpp. This pass eliminates >> >> stores backwards aggressively in an end BB. It does not check >> >> dependencies >> >> on stores in an end BB though. For example, in this code snippet: >> >>   ... >> >> 1.  %sum.safe_r47.pre-phi = phi i64* [ %sum.safe_r47.pre, >> >> %entry.for.end_crit_edge ], [ %sum.safe_r42, %for.body ] >> >> 2.  %call9 = call i32 @gettimeofday(%struct.timeval* %end, >> >> %struct.timeval* >> >> null) nounwind >> >> 3.  %0 = bitcast %s...