search for: succefully

Hi All, While reading LLVM source code, sometimes I am wondering when should we use auto instead of iterator/const_iterator. I want to use the patch [1] I sent before as an example. Could someone give me advice/guideline here? Also, I have another question. Sometimes the for-loop uses const_iterator, say for (SUnit::const_succ_iterator I = SU->Succs.begin(), E = SU->Succs.end();

Here's what I've got so far - it seems to work, aside from the fact that DeleteDeadPHIs is not removing at least one dead PHI in my test program. --------------------- static bool mergeBlockIntoSuccessor(BasicBlock *pred, BasicBlock *succ) { if (succ == pred) return false; if (pred->getFirstNonPHI() != pred->getTerminator()) return false; //

On Feb 1, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > On Feb 1, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Andrew Clinton wrote: > >> I have a (non-entry) basic block that contains only PHI nodes and an >> unconditional branch (that does not branch to itself). Is it always >> possible to merge this block with it's successor and produce a >> semantically equivalent program? I'm

I try to do single proportion test on my category data. Here is my R script: library("ctest") catSignifTest <- function( catFile ) { ############################################################### ## Get the data sets from text file catData <- read.table( catFile ) ncols <- length(catData) nrows <- length(catData[,1]) ncol1 <- ncols - 1 probeNbr

I have members with usernames. In the event that a new member requests an already-existing username, I''d like to automatically "increment" a next-best string: johnny johnny1 johnny2 Knowing RoR, my gut tells me there''s some elegant, concise way to do this, but I can''t think of it. Any advice? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

This looks like a bug in simplifycfg. We should preserve lifetime intrinsics due to the reasons I described. The code in //lib/Transforms/Utils/Local.cpp: if (Succ->getSinglePredecessor()) { // BB is the only predecessor of Succ, so Succ will end up with exactly // the same predecessors BB had. // Copy over any phi, debug or lifetime instruction.

Hi! I'm working on ASan option that uses llvm.lifetime intrinsics to detect use-after-scope bugs. In short, the idea is to insert calls into ASan runtime that would mark the memory as "addressable" or "unaddressable". I see the following problem with the following "trivial" basic block: for.body.lr.ph.i: ; preds = %for.body.i310

On 24 December 2012 04:02, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote: > This looks like a bug in simplifycfg. We should preserve lifetime intrinsics > due to the reasons I described. > The code in //lib/Transforms/Utils/Local.cpp: > > if (Succ->getSinglePredecessor()) { > // BB is the only predecessor of Succ, so Succ will end up with exactly > // the

Hi, I see that currently physical register uses marked as "undef" can still cause dependencies. Is this intentional? SU(9): %D5<def,undef> = LDrid %R0, 0, %R10<imp-def>, %R11<imp-def> # preds left : 0 # succs left : 11 # rdefs left : 0 Latency : 1 Depth : 0 Height : 0 Successors: ...

On Jun 1, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Jakub Staszak wrote: > I just found a small bug. Fixed version attached. > > <kuba_bp3.patch> Committed as r132613 (and r132616). Thanks Jakub! To help reviewers understand the patch and where we're headed with it, I've prepared the following design documentation. For now I'm sending it to llvm-dev until we have an official design doc for

Hello! I just wanted to tell everyone that I have successfully used a TDM400 with an IBM Netfinity 5600 server. I used PCI Slot 3 (the first hot-swap PCI slot). I had a ServeRAID 3L controller in slot 1as well, which managed the server's array. Other than that, there was nothing extra installed. 2x667MHz PIII, 1GB RAM, 4 x 18GB hot-swap SCSI drives. The only problems I had were Ouch

rehello centos list after some modifications rpm fedora core 14 of bind-9.7.3 and patching. diff -u unpatched/configure.in patched/configure.in --- unpatched/configure.in 2010-07-05 14:02:20.000000000 +0200 +++ patched/configure.in 2010-07-05 14:03:48.000000000 +0200 @@ -282,7 +282,8 @@ AC_C_INLINE AC_C_VOLATILE AC_CHECK_FUNC(sysctlbyname, AC_DEFINE(HAVE_SYSCTLBYNAME))

Hello list, I have to change the PC where run my samba4 as PDC, the cause is that this PC will change all hardware, if i copy the /usr/local/samba to new pc everything work succeful????? or I must make other change? thanks

Hi I have checked all blocks, each block have a Terminator instruction and each blocks belongs to a function. I'm really confused. I guess the problem is caused by the removal of the Loop,The code is as follows: * //every block to header (except the ones in the loop), will now redirect to newblock for (pred_iterator PI = pred_begin(header); PI != pred_end(header); ++PI) {

Hi, I want to insert a conditional branch in the middle of a basic block. To that end, I am doing these steps: (1) Split the basic block: bb->splitBasicBlock() (2) Remove the old terminator: succ->removePredecessor(bb) bb->getTerminator()->getParent() (3) Adding a new terminator: BranchInst::Create(ifTrue, ifFalse, cnd, "", bb); That seems to work, but later passes

Steven Langasek wrote: > Having one PDC and two BDCs also gives you greater > fault-tolerance than > having three domains with a single PDC each. > > Samba+LDAP can give you this fault tolerance; it can't give you trust > relationships today, without a lot of finagling. > > Steve Langasek > postmodern programmer > Steve: I understand the role of/need for the

Jakob, I have a question about the following (four) asserts recently added in bundleWithPred() and bundleWithSucc() (see below). What is the real danger of reasserting a connection even if it already exist? My problem with them happens when I try to call finalizeBundle() on an existing bundle to which I have added a new instruction. The goal - a new bundle header with liveness abbreviation, but

Hello list reader, Did people succed in trying to run Delphi applications with wine ??? Well, if they didn't work we can always try to use kylix to get them work. But I suspect that we will have to go with lot of rewriting because of the type of these applications : graphical intensive ones. Any ideas about that ? Thanks ! Guy

Andrew Barlett wrote: > > Domain trusts (in terms of us being a PDC trusting other DCs) are > currenetly a work in progress. We hope to have it finished for Samba > 3.0. > > However, why do you need domain trusts? (There are lots of > good answers > to this question, but make sure you do have one of the answers). > > Samba 2.2 has always supported being a member

Hi, I've been thinking about how to keep the line number with the llvm transform/Analysis passes. Basically, I agree with Chris's notes ( http://www.nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/DebugInfoImprovements.txt), and I will follow his way to turn on the line number information when optimization enabled. Here is a detailed proposal: 1. Introduction At the time of this writing, LLVM's