search for: tzeng

...placing the calls to free at the predecessors of dominance frontier is inadequate. It is possible that there are exit blocks that are dominated by BB12 (calls to malloc). I guess we can also insert calls to free at these exit blocks too. > H. > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Bin Tzeng <bintzeng at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I have been writing a pass to heapify some alloca's (it is >> pessimistization, not optimization). For example, in the following control >> flow graph, there is a call to malloc inserted in block BB12. In o...

...r25315. It calculates the > "availability frontier" which is probably what you're looking for. > I suggest, however, that you try coming up with another solution instead. > You might consider using -mergereturn. > > H. > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Bin Tzeng <bintzeng at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Henrique, >> Thanks for the quick reply! >> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Henrique Santos < >> henrique.nazare.santos at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> PRE normally uses a latest placement algorithm t...

...Additionally, it also provided an estimate of Theta, which I believe is the exp(estimate of log(theta)). However, if I would like to have an standard error of Theta itself (not the SE.logtheta), how would I obtain or calculate that standard error? Thank you very much for your time. Best regards, Tzeng Yih Lam ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PhD Candidate Department of Forest Engineering, Resources and Management College of Forestry Oregon State University 321 Richardson Hall Corvallis OR 97330 USA Phone: +1.541.713.7504 Fax: +1.541.713.7504 -------...

...interested, PRE.cpp existed last at r25315. It calculates the "availability frontier" which is probably what you're looking for. I suggest, however, that you try coming up with another solution instead. You might consider using -mergereturn. H. On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Bin Tzeng <bintzeng at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Henrique, > Thanks for the quick reply! > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Henrique Santos < > henrique.nazare.santos at gmail.com> wrote: > >> PRE normally uses a latest placement algorithm to do something of the >> s...

...25315. It calculates the > "availability frontier" which is probably what you're looking for. > I suggest, however, that you try coming up with another solution instead. > You might consider using -mergereturn. > > H. > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Bin Tzeng <bintzeng at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Henrique, >> Thanks for the quick reply! >> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Henrique Santos < >> henrique.nazare.santos at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> PRE normally uses a latest placement algorithm t...

...each another block where a call to free() was inserted without going back to BB10 again. I hope this reasoning make sense. : ) Also, you might also have to treat the special case in which the block where the malloc() is placed dominates the return block. H. On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Bin Tzeng <bintzeng at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Henrique, > > I have tried using -mergereturn and inserting a free into the predecessors > of dominance frontier of malloc block and it caused double free. It is > possible for multiple free's to be inserted on the path from malloc to an...

Thanks for the reply. Just for a little more clarity, is i16, i32... signed, unsigned, or just a bit pattern? On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 20, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Bin Tzeng <bintzeng at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > There might be a simple error in the LLVM reference manual. The example > for sext instruction: > > > > %X = sext i8 -1 to i16 ; yields i16 :65535 > > > > %X should yield i16: -1, as op...

Hi all, LLVM is smart that it can synthesize llvm.memset, llvm.memcpy etc. from loops, which can be lowered into calls to memset, memcpy and so on. Is there an option that can disable this optimization? For some cases, I do not want the code to depend on libc. Thanks in advance! Bin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

...unroll-count=4 csShader.ll Loop Unroll: F[build_cs_5_0] Loop %loop_entry Loop Size = 82 partially unrolling with count: 1 Thanks, Frances On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Frances Tzeng via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *To: *llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > *Sent: *Monday, October 12, 2015 6:13:25 PM > *Subject: *[llvm-dev] question about llvm partial unrolling/runtime > unrolling > > Hi, > > I am trying to do loop unrolling with loops th...

...er" which is probably what you're looking > for. > > I suggest, however, that you try coming up with another solution > instead. You might consider using -mergereturn. > > > > > > H. > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Bin Tzeng < bintzeng at gmail.com > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Henrique, > Thanks for the quick reply! > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Henrique Santos < > henrique.nazare.santos at gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > > > PRE...

On Jun 20, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Bin Tzeng <bintzeng at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > There might be a simple error in the LLVM reference manual. The example for sext instruction: > > %X = sext i8 -1 to i16 ; yields i16 :65535 > > %X should yield i16: -1, as opposed to 65535. > Here is the simple p...

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Bin Tzeng > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Error in the example of sext instruction in reference manual > Just for a little more clarity, is i16, i32... signed, unsigned, or > just a bit pattern? It's just a bit pattern. The operations performed on it can treat it as signed, unsigned, or whatever, a...

On 7/30/2013 12:55 PM, Bin Tzeng wrote: > Hi all, > > LLVM is smart that it can synthesize llvm.memset, llvm.memcpy etc. from > loops, which can be lowered into calls to memset, memcpy and so on. Is > there an option that can disable this optimization? For some cases, I do > not want the code to depend on libc....

15.06.2013, 00:53, "Bin Tzeng" <bintzeng at gmail.com>: > It is interesting. I can see some use cases with such a tool. To me, source-level implementation > is not as accurate as binary translation. For instance, it is hard to check the taint for return addresses > since there is no concept of return instruc...

Hi all, There might be a simple error in the LLVM reference manual. The example for sext instruction: %X = sext i8 -1 to i16 ; yields i16 :65535 %X should yield i16: -1, as opposed to 65535. Here is the simple patch (also attached): Index: docs/LangRef.rst =================================================================== --- docs/LangRef.rst (revision 184496) +++ docs/LangRef.rst

...ething of the sort. I don't know about GVN/PRE, but older version of PRE might have it. Just placing the calls to free at the predecessors (dominated by BB12) of the dominance frontier of BB12 seems to work, however. Is there anything wrong with this? H. On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Bin Tzeng <bintzeng at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I have been writing a pass to heapify some alloca's (it is > pessimistization, not optimization). For example, in the following control > flow graph, there is a call to malloc inserted in block BB12. In order to > avoid memor...

Hi all, I have been writing a pass to heapify some alloca's (it is pessimistization, not optimization). For example, in the following control flow graph, there is a call to malloc inserted in block BB12. In order to avoid memory leak, free's are needed. The free cannot be inserted in BB23 because BB23 is not dominated by BB12. There are two ways to go I can think of here. One way is to

Hi, I am trying to do loop unrolling with loops that don't have constant loop counter. It is highly appreciated if anyone can help me on this. What I want to do is to turn loop (n) { <loop body> } into loop (n/4) { <loop body> <loop body> <loop body> <loop body> } loop (n%4) { <loop

...ot;sqrt"), then will the maximized value of log-likelihood function using logLik() be valid (other than the issue that the dispersion parameter is counted as a parameter in aic() within glm())? Thank you in advance and I appreciate it very much for any advices that are offered. Best regards, TzengYih Lam TzengYih Lam, PhD Student College of Forestry Oregon State University [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

It is interesting. I can see some use cases with such a tool. To me, source-level implementation is not as accurate as binary translation. For instance, it is hard to check the taint for return addresses since there is no concept of return instructions on source level. The stack does not appear until later. For a security mechanism, return addresses need to be protected. On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at