search for: splitcriticaledges

On May 2, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Akira Hatanaka wrote: > - vreg81's VarInfo: > Alive in blocks: 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 19, > Killed by: > #0: J <BB#17> > > > As you can see, VarInfo vreg81 is killed by the unconditional jump instruction of BB#20 when it should be killed by the newly created conditional branch in BB#14 (BEQ). Is this a bug in

Does updateTerminator() need to be rewritten in order to implement the changes you suggested (call LV->replaceKillInstruction)? Or can it be taken care of just by adding code to the files in Target/Mips? Also, is the generated code still correct if -disable-phi-elim-edge-splitting is added to the command line options? On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at

On Jul 22, 2011, at 10:29 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > // Restrictions: > > There are several new invariants which will be enforced by the verifier: > > 1. A landing pad block is a basic block which is the unwind destination of an > invoke instruction. > 2. A landing pad block must have a landingpad instruction as its first non-PHI > instruction. > 3. The landingpad

On Jul 22, 2011, at 11:44 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > On Jul 22, 2011, at 10:29 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> // Restrictions: >> >> There are several new invariants which will be enforced by the verifier: >> >> 1. A landing pad block is a basic block which is the unwind destination of an >> invoke instruction. >> 2. A landing pad block

Is LiveVariables updated correctly when TII->RemoveBranch and TII->InsertBranch are called in the following piece of code? - MachineBasicBlock::updateTerminator() line 307 of MachineBasicBlock.cpp: if (FBB) { // The block has a non-fallthrough conditional branch. If one of its // successors is its layout successor, rewrite it to a fallthrough // conditional branch.

On Jul 23, 2011, at 2:00 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > On Jul 23, 2011, at 1:11 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> On Jul 22, 2011, at 11:44 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: >>> Could we add: >>> >>> - A landing pad block is not the destination of any other kind of terminator. Only unwind edges are allowed. >>> >>> - The landingpad

On Jul 23, 2011, at 1:11 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Jul 22, 2011, at 11:44 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: >> Could we add: >> >> - A landing pad block is not the destination of any other kind of terminator. Only unwind edges are allowed. >> >> - The landingpad instruction must only appear at the top of a landing pad. It cannot appear in any other block, or

Hi I run into an issue as part of splitting a critical edge during LICM. When a new basic block is created and needs to be added into the dominator tree, the block is already in the dominator tree. I print the dominator tree and I see it is added into the tree as child of node it is supposed to dominate. How do I debug to find out why/when its getting added into the tree. ? Tips/suggestions on

On Jul 23, 2011, at 4:15 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Jul 23, 2011, at 2:00 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: >> Yes. You scared me with 'requires considerable care'. Does that mean anything other than 'you have to duplicate the landing pad instead of splitting the unwind edge'. Is special magic required to duplicate a landingpad instruction? >> > There

On Jul 22, 2011, at 11:44 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > On Jul 22, 2011, at 10:29 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> // Restrictions: >> >> There are several new invariants which will be enforced by the verifier: >> >> 1. A landing pad block is a basic block which is the unwind destination of an >> invoke instruction. >> 2. A landing pad block

Can you please post the code to split a MachineBasicBlock? I am trying to split a MachineBasicBlock at a specific instruction in the MBB, let us say, into MBB1 and MBB2. This instruction should go into MBB2. Also MBB1 should have an unconditional branch to MBB2 as the terminator. (quite similar to splitBasicBlock in BasicBlock.cpp) Meanwhile, I am trying to come up with a variant of

While reviewing a fix for maintaining loop metadata (http://reviews.llvm.org/D5539) I noticed that we make a strict assumption about the metadata being attached to the branch that is an immediate predecessor of the loop header. This does not work well with LLVM's approach of lazy critical edge splitting. I've proposed working around this with heroics inside the critical edges splitting

Hello, Here are a few misc. comments on this patch. Would it make sense to mark the ProfileInfo passes as "CFGOnly?" If so, that would let them be automatically preserved by passes which don't modify the CFG (and that call AU.setPreservesCFG()). > + if (ProfileInfo* PI = getAnalysisIfAvailable<ProfileInfo>()) { > + PI->splitEdge(OrigPreHeader, NewHeader,

Hi all, this (altough a big patch) is actually pretty straight forward: It (tries) to preserve ProfileInfo in all -std-compile-opts passes and all X86-Backend passes. There is still some passes that have corner cases where the ProfileInfo is not correct after the pass. Some passes are still missing... How shall I proceed with this? Andi -------------- next part -------------- A non-text

On Jul 22, 2011, at 11:52 PM, Cameron Zwarich wrote: > On Jul 22, 2011, at 11:44 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > >> On Jul 22, 2011, at 10:29 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: >> >>> // Restrictions: >>> >>> There are several new invariants which will be enforced by the verifier: >>> >>> 1. A landing pad block is a basic block which is

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200320/34cdec77/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- Hi all, I have encountered some issues with the preservation of the location of llvm.loop metadata (containing optimisation hints), and would appreciate some feedback on the issue. The IR language description states that

What? Yet another EH proposal?! This one is different from the others in that I'm planning to start implementing this shortly. But I want your feedback! I've all ready gotten a lot of feedback from Chris, John, Jim, Eric, and many others. Now is your turn! Please read this proposal and send me your comments, suggestions, and concerns. -bw

2015-05-27 10:59 GMT-07:00 Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com>: > > On 2015 May 27, at 10:24, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:15 AM Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > wrote: > >>> On May 26, 2015, at 11:20 PM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com> > wrote:

> On 2015 May 27, at 14:01, Alex L <arphaman at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2015-05-27 10:59 GMT-07:00 Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com>: > > On 2015 May 27, at 10:24, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:15 AM Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > >>>

Hi, I'm writing a ModulePass that needs critical edges split up. I have the statement AU.addRequiredID(BreakCriticalEdgesID); in my getAnalysisUsage() but the pass never gets executed. I guess I have to request pass execution for each function, but I can't get behind how to do that, since there is no analysis group for that kind of transformation. Thanks, Andi