search for: unifications

Currently the nv30 and nv40 Gallium drivers are very similar, and contain about 5000 lines of essentially duplicate code. I prepared a patchset (which can be found at http://repo.or.cz/w/mesa/mesa-lb.git/shortlog/refs/heads/unification+fixes) which gradually unifies the drivers, one file per the commit. A new "nvfx" directory is created, and unified files are put there one by one.

Hi All, I wanted to understand the type unification algorithm (the implementations of 'refineAbstractTypeTo') used in LLVM. In the source code, there are a lot of code relevant to 'refineAbstractTypeTo', and I didn't find a big picture about how it works. Does the code implement any standard type unification algorithm that I can refer to? What is a good start point to

On 2 November 2015 at 18:40, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro.org> wrote: > Is it 39 or 42-bit VMA? I noted a 42-bit issue in segment definition > that I have fixed on my TSAN unification mapping patch [1]: No, that's 39-bit. cheers, --renato

Hello Community Congratulations everyone for the reunification. To kick off the process, shall we finalize channels we are going to use for communication so that all the developers involved know what is going on and where. Which ML and IRC would be used for 'semi-official' communication etc. 1. Danny, Quinn and Marex have already started working on compiz-plugins-beryl-premerge tree on

Hi, LLVM dev team: Thanks for your suggestion, I have done the experiment to compare the two pointer analysis(Andersen and Steensgaard) methods in LLVM, but the result was unexpected. In each test, I compare these two methods using same optimization; There are several tests, each with a different optimization. The benchmark is all the 11 C programs in CINT2000 of SPEC. In all the tests, I found

聪明陈 wrote: > Hi LLVM dev team: > I am now doing an experiment to comparing Steensgaard-style and > Andersen-style pointer analysis on LLVM. Since steensgaard pointer > analysis is in module "poolalloc", so I installed poolalloc release > 2.6 on my machine(intel X86_64 RedHatEnterpriseLinux 5.1, gcc-4.2.4), > two directories "include" and "lib" were

I developed a solution to the problem where you might have systems setup w/ winbind mapping GIDs and UIDs, NSS, and PAM setup so windows users can login, but winbind maps possible different UIDs/GIDs from system to system preventing unified UIDs/GIDs in your environment. I tried having one box setup with NSS winbind / PAM etc. plus I made that system an NIS master w/ a script to periodically pull

Hi Josh, Since you added me to the CC, I had a look... Comments inline On Tue, Oct 22, 2013, at 3:34, Josh Triplett wrote: > The 32-bit and 64-bit versions of copy_thread have functionally > identical handling for copying the I/O bitmap, modulo differences in > error handling. Clean up the error paths in both by moving the copy of > the I/O bitmap to the end, to eliminate the need

Hi Josh, Since you added me to the CC, I had a look... Comments inline On Tue, Oct 22, 2013, at 3:34, Josh Triplett wrote: > The 32-bit and 64-bit versions of copy_thread have functionally > identical handling for copying the I/O bitmap, modulo differences in > error handling. Clean up the error paths in both by moving the copy of > the I/O bitmap to the end, to eliminate the need

Signed-off-by: Nicolas Cornu <nicolac76 at yahoo.fr> --- extlinux/main.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) diff --git a/extlinux/main.c b/extlinux/main.c index 6871fb1..385b364 100644 --- a/extlinux/main.c +++ b/extlinux/main.c @@ -1415,21 +1415,12 @@ static int open_device(const char *path, struct stat *st, char

Hi LLVM dev team: I am now doing an experiment to comparing Steensgaard-style and Andersen-style pointer analysis on LLVM. Since steensgaard pointer analysis is in module "poolalloc", so I installed poolalloc release 2.6 on my machine(intel X86_64 RedHatEnterpriseLinux 5.1, gcc-4.2.4), two directories "include" and "lib" were created after installation but no

Ok. To go back to the original issue, would it be meaningful to add a SCEVUMax(0, BTC) on the final BTC computed by SCEV? So that it does not use "negative values"? On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 2:40 PM Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 8/15/2018 2:27 PM, Alexandre Isoard wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand the poison/undef/UB distinctions. >

Hi, LLVM dev team: Thanks for your suggestion, I have done the experiment to compare the two pointer analysis(Andersen and Steensgaard) methods in LLVM, but the result was unexpected. In each test, I compare these two methods using same optimization; There are several tests, each with a different optimization. The benchmark is all the 11 C programs in CINT2000 of SPEC. In all the tests, I found

I'm not sure I understand the poison/undef/UB distinctions. But on this example: define i32 @func(i1 zeroext %b, i32 %x, i32 %y) { > entry: > %adds = add nsw i32 %x, %y > %addu = add nuw i32 %x, %y > %cond = select i1 %b, i32 %adds, i32 %addu > ret i32 %cond > } It is important to not propagate the nsw/nuw between the two SCEV expressions (which unification would

?Hello everybody, I'm working on the "Use difftime for time comparison" bug (#313634). Charles directed me to the other one "Use monotonic clock for monitoring" attended to by Baruch; I believe that's very good idea, however I'd use a bit more encapsulated & general approach: 1/ I'd create an opaque timer type and its get/set/cmp/inc/dec etc interface

Hi, Ben, As Will suggested, try the TD pass, not EQTD, and see if that works better for you. Having said that, DSA currently doesn't do well with vtables. It is not a fundamental limitation of the algorithm itself and we think we know how to improve it, so if those are important to you, let me know. DSA is indeed a unification-style analysis, not inclusion based. It is partially context

On Mar 21, 2016, at 10:00 AM, Jia Chen via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> So my question here is: what kind(s) of precision really justify the cost and what kinds do not? >> >> Depends entirely on your applications. >> >> Has anybody done any study in the past to evaluate what kinds of features in pointer analyses will benefit what

On 03/25/2016 08:08 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > I’m still a big fan of context sensitive, flow insensitive, > unification based models. Interestingly I find the unification approach quite unsatisfactory sometime. What happens there is pointers with the same "depth" are too often clobbered together unless they are really unrelated to each other. > Contrary to your claim,

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Mai, Haohui <haohui.mai at gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/9/09 3:28 AM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Lei Shang<shang1982 at gmail.com>  wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>>     I just found -steens-aa and -ds-aa Alias Analysis listed in documents do >>> not exist in my llvm-2.3 code. Both from

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka at siemens.com> wrote: > From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka at siemens.com> > > Not sure if those two worked by design or just by chance so far. In any > case, it's at least cleaner and clearer to express this in a single > config statement. Congrats! You found by the way a bug in commit