search for: wmatyjewicz

...here? BTW, when I run llvm test, is there a flag that can turn on option to print the test commands in details in addition to just show the test is passed or failed? Thank you Haifeng On 8/23/07, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > On 8/23/07, Wojciech Matyjewicz <wmatyjewicz at fastmail.fm> wrote: > > Static ID fields in pass classes seem to be lacking definitions (there > > were some changes in LLVM core classes and poolalloc hasn't been yet > > fully updated to reflect them). The attached patch fixes this for DSA > > classes - LLVMDataS...

On 8/23/07, Wojciech Matyjewicz <wmatyjewicz at fastmail.fm> wrote: > Static ID fields in pass classes seem to be lacking definitions (there > were some changes in LLVM core classes and poolalloc hasn't been yet > fully updated to reflect them). The attached patch fixes this for DSA > classes - LLVMDataStructure.so loads in...

Hi! Haifeng He wrote: > okay. I guess I figured it out. It seems "poolalloc" needs to be put > in llvm/projects/ directory. Yes, it will compile then. However, it seems the resulting shared library LLVMDataStructure.so (I haven't checked the others) has some undefined symbols. Trying to load it into the opt tool produces an error: undefined symbol:

...addition to just show the test > is passed or failed? > I believe using make VERBOSE=1 will do this. -- John T. > Thank you > > Haifeng > > > > > On 8/23/07, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > >> On 8/23/07, Wojciech Matyjewicz <wmatyjewicz at fastmail.fm> wrote: >> >>> Static ID fields in pass classes seem to be lacking definitions (there >>> were some changes in LLVM core classes and poolalloc hasn't been yet >>> fully updated to reflect them). The attached patch fixes this for DSA >&g...

On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Wojciech Matyjewicz <wmatyjewicz at fastmail.fm> wrote: >> I asked myself the same question. Without mod, how do you ensure that for instance the expression 2*i+255 was not actually 2*i-1 ? > > I think it is not possible in general, but I believe it is possible in > case of affine expressions used as GEP indices....

...gt; > I believe using make VERBOSE=1 will do this. > > -- John T. > > Thank you > > > > Haifeng > > > > > > > > > > On 8/23/07, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > > > >> On 8/23/07, Wojciech Matyjewicz <wmatyjewicz at fastmail.fm> wrote: > >> > >>> Static ID fields in pass classes seem to be lacking definitions (there > >>> were some changes in LLVM core classes and poolalloc hasn't been yet > >>> fully updated to reflect them). The attached patch fixes this...

On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Wojciech Matyjewicz > <wmatyjewicz at fastmail.fm> wrote: >>> I asked myself the same question. Without mod, how do you ensure that for instance the expression 2*i+255 was not actually 2*i-1 ? >> >> I think it is not possible in general, but I believe it is possible in >> case of affine expressions used...

...9;ll try. Just one thing which concerning me is demotePHI() I couldn't find it in 1.9 so seems to me another installation of the newest version of LLVM. Anyway, Thank you. Truly yours, Seung ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 20:54:24 +0100 >From: Wojciech Matyjewicz <wmatyjewicz at fastmail.fm> >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Question to Chris >To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > >Seung, > >> Would you please explain to me how I can access to this problem in a better way if you can figure out? > >Here are my thoughts...

Wow... Thank you so much for this. I'll try this one. Thanks again, Wojciech. SJL ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 15:07:34 +0200 >From: Wojciech Matyjewicz <wmatyjewicz at fastmail.fm> >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] constructing 'for' statement from LLVM bitcode >To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > >Hi, > >Seung Jae Lee wrote: >> Hello, guys. >> I am trying to construct higher-level 'for'...

> I asked myself the same question. Without mod, how do you ensure that for instance the expression 2*i+255 was not actually 2*i-1 ? I think it is not possible in general, but I believe it is possible in case of affine expressions used as GEP indices. I assume, GEP indices (except indexing into struct) are interpreted as signed integers. It isn't explicitly stated in the LangRef, but

On Aug 20, 2008, at 8:56 AM, David Greene wrote: > What I really need is a dependence analysis interface. I need to know > about loop-carried dependencies and that sort of things, whether two > memory > operations reference the same data, distance information, etc.. As > far as I > can tell, there's no infrastructure for this in LLVM. Right, this is something we've

...____________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Wojciech Matyjewicz <wmatyjewicz at fastmail.fm> Subject: [LLVMdev] Data dependence analysis Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 10:43:32 -0500 Size: 5700 URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080820/7253d985/attachment.eml>

On Monday 18 August 2008 17:48, David Greene wrote: > > Normally, the conversion to SSA form is sufficient. Can you talk > > about cases where this matters to you? > > Mostly it involves tying into our memory dependence analysis which > annotates things on program points. I need a way to translate back > to our optimizer data structures. > > So it's not

...te direction and perhaps distance vectors. Those may or may not be easy to put in one of your layers (say, layer 3, where they belong). --Vikram http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve http://llvm.org ...... Original Message ....... On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:21:38 -0500 "Wojciech Matyjewicz" <wmatyjewicz at fastmail.fm> wrote: >Hi, > >> Cool! I think the most critical part of this is to get a good >> interface for dependence analysis. There are lots of interesting >> implementations that have various time/space tradeoffs. >> >> For example, it would be great...

...And there seems to be more issues, Wojciech. What about PHI nodes? To construct 'for' as it was, we should handle PHI nodes. I also wonder how you treated them. Thank you so much. SJ Lee ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 15:07:34 +0200 >From: Wojciech Matyjewicz <wmatyjewicz at fastmail.fm> >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] constructing 'for' statement from LLVM bitcode >To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > >Hi, > >Seung Jae Lee wrote: >> Hello, guys. >> I am trying to construct higher-level 'for'...

>However, there is one issue I have ignored - possibility of overflow in >the index expression. Suppose, we have such a loop: > for (i8 i = 0; i != 200; ++i) { > A[2 * i + 5] = ... > ... = A[2 * i + 3] > } >If both index expressions are evaluated in 8-bit arithmetic, >then the dependence equation should be solved in modular arithmetic: > 2 * i + 5 == 2 * (i +

Hi, > Cool! I think the most critical part of this is to get a good > interface for dependence analysis. There are lots of interesting > implementations that have various time/space tradeoffs. > > For example, it would be great if Omega was available as an option, > even if the compiler didn't use it by default. This argues for making > dependence analysis

>> As part of the advanced compilers course semester project (at >> UIUC), we >> are starting to implement array dependence analysis for LLVM. Great! This is something we've needed for a long time. > I'm currently working on a similar project and hoping to finish it in > about two weeks. Cool! I think the most critical part of this is to get a good

> We want to model this as an analysis and make following changes. > > - Rename LoopMemDepAnalysis as DataDependenceAnalysis. Various > transformation passes will use this interface to access data > dependence info. This is an external interface. Put this in include/ > llvm/Analysis. > - Make DirectionVector (and later on DistanceVector) independent > interface and

Hi! I think there is a break missing in switch statement of AddressMightEscape function. It causes redundant recurrent call. Wojtek -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: BasicAliasAnalysis.patch URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20070903/481046a5/attachment.ksh>