search for: succes

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; // Delete the terminator in the predecessor block pred->getTerminator()->eraseFromParent(); // Update...

...: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 trying to undo some of the loop >> optimizations that LLVM has applied to my program to reduce a pair of >> nested loops to a single loop. >> >> llvm::MergeBlockIntoPredecessor does not do what I want si...

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/.

...sor of Succ, so Succ will end up with exactly // the same predecessors BB had. // Copy over any phi, debug or lifetime instruction. BB->getTerminator()->eraseFromParent(); Succ->getInstList().splice(Succ->getFirstNonPHI(), BB->getInstList()); } does this only when successor of basic block being removed has a single predecessor. This is not the case even for simple test in /test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/lifetime.ll. That said, I think for now we should just apply the patch attached to this mail. Please take a look. On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Alexey Samsonov &l...

...; preds = %for.body.i310 call void @llvm.lifetime.start(i64 24, i8* %174) call void @llvm.lifetime.start(i64 4, i8* %175) call void @llvm.lifetime.start(i64 24, i8* %176) br label %for.body.i318 r134182 by Rafael explicitly allows simplifycfg pass to merge this block into its successor, and drop "side-effect free" lifetime.start intrinsics. However, llvm.lifetime.end intrinsics for the same memory are preserved, which is not only weird, but triggers ASan false positives: 1) function goes into for-loop with local variable declared in it 2) llvm.lifetime.end() at the e...

...exactly > // the same predecessors BB had. > > // Copy over any phi, debug or lifetime instruction. > BB->getTerminator()->eraseFromParent(); > Succ->getInstList().splice(Succ->getFirstNonPHI(), BB->getInstList()); > } > > does this only when successor of basic block being removed has a single > predecessor. > This is not the case even for simple test in > /test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/lifetime.ll. > > That said, I think for now we should just apply the patch attached to this > mail. Please take a look. Sorry I missed this em...

...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: ... val SU(14): Latency=1 val SU(14): Latency=1 val SU(14): Latency=1 ... SU(14): %D10<def,undef> = HEXAGON_S2_lsl_r_vh %D5<undef>, %R4, %R10<imp-use>, %R11<imp-use>, %R20<imp-def>, %R21<imp-def>; # preds left : 7 # succs...

.... This document defines the important terms, which should be understood before reviewing the LLVM profiling framework. ** Branch Profile Profile information derived from the compiler front-end or external source. At IR level, this conceptually represents probabilities on CFG edges such that block successor probabilities sum to 1.0. Representation: 32-bit unsigned int stored in IR meta-data. A single integer per profiled conditional branch would be sufficient. But for more convenient incremental update, and consistency with Branch Probability Analysis, we may want an integer per branch target suc...

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...

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

...red; assert(!Pred->isBundledWithSucc() && "Inconsistent bundle flags"); <<<<<<<<<<<<< Pred->setFlag(BundledSucc); } void MachineInstr::bundleWithSucc() { assert(!isBundledWithSucc() && "MI is already bundled with its successor"); <<<<<<<<<<<<< setFlag(BundledSucc); MachineBasicBlock::instr_iterator Succ = this; ++Succ; assert(!Succ->isBundledWithPred() && "Inconsistent bundle flags"); <<<<<<<<<<<<<< Suc...

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

...project. A reasonable scheme is to keep the correct debug info, if the debug info leaves incorrect after optimization, just remove it. It does not generate silently broken information. (From Chris) This is a long project, and will take quite a bit of work in all areas before we can declare "success", but it is worthwhile, and important and useful steps can be made without solving the whole problem. This proposal should solve half of this problem. That is to keep the line number information with optimization code. (From Chris)<http://www.nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/EmbeddedMetadata.txt...