search for: tjablin

Does any real code benefit from dead code eliminating read-only functions? Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Reid Kleckner" <rnk at mit.edu> To: "Thomas B. Jablin" <tjablin at CS.Princeton.EDU> Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 9:38:47 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] All CallInsts mayHaveSideEffects This is a known bug: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=965 There has be...

Hi, Is this the right mailing list for sending in diffs by irregular contributers? Should I send diffs directly to the code owner instead? Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas B. Jablin" <tjablin at CS.Princeton.EDU> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 1:55:09 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Specifying Additional Compilation Passes to lli Hi, Here is the diff for the pod file that goes with...

What do you think of this patch? I have added a check for the case I mentioned in the previous email as well as a similar situation I discovered later. Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Gohman" <gohman at apple.com> To: "Thomas B. Jablin" <tjablin at CS.Princeton.EDU> Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 12:22:03 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] AliasAnalysis Documentation Ambiguity On Jun 9, 2010, at 11:35 AM, "Thomas B. Jablin" <tjabli...

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Thomas B. Jablin <tjablin at cs.princeton.edu> wrote: > Hi, > The call target pass in the poolalloc suite yields an incorrect output for the following short test program: The DSA results are now (r56847) correct for this test case. The call is marked incomplete. Doing better is actually a pathological case in DS...

Hi, The call target pass in the poolalloc suite yields an incorrect output for the following short test program: #include <stdio.h> struct OP { void (*func)(struct OP*); }; void bar(struct OP *op); void foo(struct OP *op) { printf("Foo\n"); op->func = bar; } void bar(struct OP *op) { printf("Bar\n"); op->func = foo; } int main(int argc, char **argv)

Hi Hisham, Most likely the basic blocks are the headers of two different loops. Try running viewCFG() on the function in question to see if this is the case. Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hisham Chowdhury" <hisham_chow at yahoo.com> To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 7:22:00 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [LLVMdev] Loopinfo Analysis

Hello, I have a question regrading the analysis pass that generates loop info from an .ll code. My previous understanding was there will be just one loop header(in the loop info) for a particular loop. But, when i use isLoopHeader() member function from the loop info class I get 'true' return value for two different basic blocks. Note both basic blocks are loop conditional block(break

Hi, Here is the diff for the pod file that goes with my earlier change. Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas B. Jablin" <tjablin at CS.Princeton.EDU> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 1:30:24 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [LLVMdev] Specifying Additional Compilation Passes to lli Hi, I'm interested in specifying some additional pa...

Dear All, Should this patch be committed now? I just did a quick read-over of it when it was first submitted. -- John T. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Thomas B. Jablin" <tjablin at CS.Princeton.EDU> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] insertAfter method Patch Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:58:34 -0500 (EST) Size: 4813 URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090113/9fc69d11/attachment.eml>

Hi, I saw that Nick Lewycky removed the LLVM portable hash_map and hash_sets. My research group was relying on those classes. What replaces hash_map and hash_set? The LLVM implementation was very convenient as there is no equivalent in STL, and Microsoft's implementation had a different name, as does the C++ 0X implementation. Thanks. Tom Jablin

Hi, The description of the alias method in AliasAnalysis reads: alias - The main low level interface to the alias analysis implementation. Returns a Result indicating whether the two pointers are aliased to each other. This is the interface that must be implemented by specific alias analysis implementations. This implies that alias can run on ANY two Values without restrictions. However, line

Nevermind. I misread the documentation. On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Thomas Jablin <tjablin at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Is it valid to query ScalarEvolution::getSCEVAtScope with a Value > which is an Instruction inside the provided Loop? If so, I believe > there is a bug in computeSCEVAtScope. Specifically: > > 04716     // If the scope is outside the addrec'...

Sorry. Here is the correct version. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas B. Jablin" <tjablin at CS.Princeton.EDU> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Friday, December 5, 2008 1:08:57 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] MachineCodeEmitter Patch Evan, Here are the modifications you asked for. I have, for the most part, not...

Hi, All CallInsts should return true for Instruction::mayHaveSideEffects() because functions are not guaranteed to halt. Inliner::runOnSCC calls isInstructionTriviallyDead to determine whether code can be dead code eliminated. isInstructionTriviallyDead returns true if Instruction::mayHaveSideEffects() returns false. A function that potentially runs forever based on its input but does not write

Thanks. I do not have commit privilege. Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Evan Cheng" <evan.cheng at apple.com> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Monday, December 8, 2008 5:39:33 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] MachineCodeEmitter Patch Looks good. Do you have commit privilege? Evan On Nov 22, 2008, at

----- "Evan Cheng" <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > On Sep 16, 2008, at 8:44 AM, Thomas B. Jablin wrote: > > > Evan, > > So, if I understand you correctly, the design you have in mind is > > to: create a PassManager, pass it to the JIT on construction, and > > modify runJITOnFunction to run the second PassManager on the > > Function

Hi, I'm interested in specifying some additional passes to the JIT via the command-line. The enclosed patch allows lli to take compiler passes as command-line arguments in the same way opt does. This is my first submission, so any comments, criticisms, or observations would be very welcome. Thanks. Tom Jablin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name:

Hi, I have added an insertAfter method to the ilist and Instruction classes. The methods are implemented as efficiently as the currently existing insert and insertBefore methods. The insertAfter method was created to mirror a similar method in another compiler in order to ease an ongoing port. The patch, which is very small is included as AddInsertBefore.patch. Additionally, I wrote a small test

John Criswell wrote: > Small nitpick: in Instruction.cpp, the comment for insertAfter says > insertBefore and not insertAfter. > :) > > -- John T. > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > Thanks for spotting

Hi, Is it valid to query ScalarEvolution::getSCEVAtScope with a Value which is an Instruction inside the provided Loop? If so, I believe there is a bug in computeSCEVAtScope. Specifically: 04716     // If the scope is outside the addrec's loop, evaluate it by using the 04717     // loop exit value of the addrec. 04718     if (!AddRec->getLoop()->contains(L)) { 04719       // To