search for: transformed

Hi, A number of transforms are actually independent, so here's a partial fix. I updated the dependencies in a cluster of transforms: LowerSwitch, Mem2Reg, LowerSelect, LowerAllocations, UnifyFunctionExitNodes. The patch has been tested, but not extensively. PassManager doesn't complain, and the result of a test pass that requires all these (except for LowerAllocations) together works

Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com> writes: > On 06/12/2018 12:04 AM, David A. Greene wrote: >> // PIA - PassInstrumentationAnalysis >> if (PIA->skipTransformation()) { >> return; >> } >> // Do it. >> PIA->didTransformation(); > That should be easily doable (though the interface would be part of > PassInstrumentation > rather

libswfdec/swfdec_text_field_movie.c | 6 ++++-- test/image/Makefile.am | 7 +++++++ test/image/text-field-color-transform-6.swf |binary test/image/text-field-color-transform-6.swf.png |binary test/image/text-field-color-transform-7.swf |binary test/image/text-field-color-transform-7.swf.png |binary test/image/text-field-color-transform-8.swf

Hi folks, I've been playing with LLVM on a Chromebook (Ubuntu) and it seems to work quite well. Installing Ubuntu on the Chromebook was a breeze[1] and all tools/libs/headers required to check-out and build LLVM were accessible via apt-get. I had two problems to build it, but apart from those, it all ran smoother than I'd expected. I'll investigate the errors a bit deeper later on,

Hi all, here comes the patch for the first wave of Use class size reduction. I have split it into 3 files, corresponding to - header changes - implementation changes - applications This at the moment does not contain the description how the size of the Use class will be reduced from 16 to 12 bytes, I am going to send that in a separate patch. This wave primarily consists of changes that are

Hi Dmitri, For what version of VS did you update the project files? Ted On May 17, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Dmitri Makarov wrote: > attached is the diff of vcprojs that need to be changed to fix the VS > build as of revision: 51224. > > I don't know if this catches all the missing bits, but this does build > all the way through. > > > Index: win32/Analysis/Analysis.vcproj

Dear all, I'm working on a simple code transformation problem that can be described as below: for a C++ loop: *for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) {* * a = M[i] + b;* * }* I want to transform it to: *int A[4]; * * for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) {* * A[0] = M[i] + b;* * A[1] = M[i] + b;* * A[2] = M[i] + b;* * A[3] = M[i] + b;* *

Hi everyone, I'm using the metafor package to meta-analyze a set of proportions. This is working really well for the raw proportions, but is there a way to back-transform the arcsine transformed proportions in the rma or forest functions with the atransf option? The estimates and CIs for the transformed proportions need to be back-transformed to be the sin of the estimate squared. Back-transforming the output isn't a big deal - it's the forest plots that I would need the back trans...

attached is the diff of vcprojs that need to be changed to fix the VS build as of revision: 51224. I don't know if this catches all the missing bits, but this does build all the way through. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: msvs.patch URL:

Duncan Sands <baldrick <at> free.fr> writes: > > > I would be happy if you give me an insight into what could have caused the > > difference. > > No idea. Maybe you forgot to turn optimizations on when compiling? Otherwise > you are going to have to send in your programs along with an explanation of how > you compiled them exactly (exact sequence of

...ass-failed=transform-warning] > > For the example given in revert 858a1ae, in both cases before and after my commit, the loop vectoriser was bailing because "Not vectorizing: The exiting block is not the loop latch". The source looks like a straightforward canonical loop. What pass transformed it to have code between the exiting block and the latch? > But the difference is that vectorize_width() now implies vectorize(enable), and so this is now marked as forced vectorisation which wasn't the case before. Because of this forced vectorization, and that the transformation wasn'...

There are many people complaining that tablet PCs perform not so satisfactory when they are used to play videos. Actually, at first, tablet PC is developed as a mobile small PC that offers more convenient experience for being taken outside. So, it is not a professional media player that can fit all your playing requirements. And we should figure out that tablet PCs can playback most of videos

...t your project straight: you are writing a tool that should (let's say) help students to identify what does a loop seems like after a chosen transformation. Is that the case? If so, your first objective would be isolating a loop transformation and avoid other transformations to mess up with the transformed loop, right? Well, as far as I know, every analysis and transformation in LLVM is a Pass. If you want to see which passes and the order that they were called, you could pass --debug-pass=Structure when using opt, and the PassManager will print the call list for you. If you want only one transform...

...t; Watch the result (which should be in an input language or possibly in LLVM IR). I know that LLVM can do some of the loop transformations but as far as I know it decides itself what transformation (if any) will be done. Or am I mistaken? Is it possible to specify which loop is supposed to be transformed and how? Is it easily possible to get the (above mentioned) mark through the compiler frontend so it would appear in the LLVM IR as well? Then maybe I could write my own pass and use the `opt` command to run it on the .ll file and watch it before and after the pass. Am I mistaken? Is there a be...

Hi All, I've been successfully using the with function for analyses and the transform function for multiple transformations. Then I thought, why not use "with" for both? I ran into problems & couldn't figure them out from help files or books. So I created a simplified version of what I'm doing: rm( list=ls() ) x1<-c(1,3,3) x2<-c(3,2,1) x3<-c(2,5,2)

I checked out llvm from cvs & llvm-gcc from svn last night and again tonight. Each time they compiled and installed fine. After installing them, I recompiled compiler transforms I had written for opt. opt seems to load the my transform libraries fine, but it complains: opt: Unknown command line argument '-mytransform' whenever I try to specify one of my transforms on the opt

Am Mi., 2. Okt. 2019 um 15:56 Uhr schrieb Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov>: > > It's done by the WarnMissedTransformation and just looks for > > transformation metadata that is still in the IR after all passes that > > should have transformed them have ran. That is, it does not know why > > it is still there -- it could be because the LoopVectorize pass is not > > even in the pipeline -- and we cannot be more specific in the message. > > However, -Rpass-missed=loop-vectorize may give more information. > > As I re...

...--------------- Original program: * char grade; ... switch(grade) { case 'A' : printf("Excellent!\n" ); break; case 'B' : printf("Well done\n" ); break; default : printf("Invalid grade\n" ); }* may be transformed to something like *if (grad=='A') printf("Excellent!\n" );* *else if (grad=='B') printf("Well done\n" );* *else printf("Invalid grade\n" );* ------------------------------------------------- Are you aware of such a transform...

Hi Rithik, CodeMoverUtils is not aimed for only loop transformations, it can be used by any transformation which want to move code or check if code is safe to be moved. It can currently do both hoist and sink but require control flow equivalent between the original location and the intended to be moved location. I would like to keep the API decoupled from loop, so other transformation can use it.

...to transform it to: >> >> *int A[4]; * >> >> * for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) {* >> * A[0] = M[i] + b;* >> * A[1] = M[i] + b;* >> * A[2] = M[i] + b;* >> * A[3] = M[i] + b;* >> * }* >> > > ​The transformed code should be > > *int A[4]; * > > * for (int i = 0; i < N; i+=4) {* > * A[0] = M[i] + b;* > * A[1] = M[i+1] + b;* > * A[2] = M[i+2] + b;* > * A[3] = M[i+3] + b;* > * }* > > ​I would suggest you manually rewrite the code,...