search for: zhongxing

On Dec 21, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Zhongxing Xu wrote: > 2009/12/21 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>: >> Hi All, >> >> A few of us got together and started an official LLVM (and its sub- >> projects) blog: >> http://blog.llvm.org/ > > Is it online? I cannot open it. If it's online, I hi...

...gt; wrote: > The first question is code placement. How is the compiler going to decide > which block (or blocks) to emit an instruction in? The answer to that will > help determine how control relationships should be represented. > > Dan > > > On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:56 PM, Zhongxing Xu <xuzhongxing at gmail.com> wrote: > > I am trying to build a DAG for a whole function. The first problem I met >> is to assign a user for the last instruction of each basic block, be it >> BRCOND or other node. There is no natural user for such nodes. Without user, >&...

...on. The first problem I met is to assign a user for the last instruction of each basic block, be it BRCOND or other node. There is no natural user for such nodes. Without user, it will be removed in later phases. My idea is to use it as chain for nodes in the next basic block. Is this reasonable? -Zhongxing Xu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100608/3f5e4900/attachment.html>

Hi all, We did some benchmarks on code size with clang, gcc 4.5, and open64. Clang performed second in the test. The benchmark is CSiBE. Clang can't compile the linux kernel (some inline asm not supported) and replaypc (error: use of unknown builtin '__builtin_next_arg'). The concrete results are attached. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

2009/12/22 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>: > > On Dec 21, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Zhongxing Xu wrote: > >> 2009/12/21 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> A few of us got together and started an official LLVM (and its >>> sub-projects) blog: >>>  http://blog.llvm.org/ >> >> Is it onl...

The first question is code placement. How is the compiler going to decide which block (or blocks) to emit an instruction in? The answer to that will help determine how control relationships should be represented. Dan On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:56 PM, Zhongxing Xu <xuzhongxing at gmail.com> wrote: > I am trying to build a DAG for a whole function. The first problem I > met is to assign a user for the last instruction of each basic > block, be it BRCOND or other node. There is no natural user for such > nodes. Without user, it will...

I have another idea: let the BasicBlockSDNode points to the last node in its predecessor blocks. But this will introduce cycles into the selection DAG, making it not a DAG anymore. So what's the impact of a non-DAG on the existing DAG legalizers and combiner? On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Zhongxing Xu <xuzhongxing at gmail.com> wrote: > At first I'll try the simplest strategy: put the instruction in the machine > BB corresponding to the LLVM BB where it comes from. > > To implement this, I plan to add an operand to non-passive node which > points to the BasicBlockSDN...

Index: include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h =================================================================== --- include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h (revision 55101) +++ include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h (working copy) @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ #include <cassert> #include <iosfwd> #include <string> +#include <cstring> namespace llvm { class Serializer; -------------- next part -------------- An

Hi, On Fedora 9 GCC 4.3, LLVMCConfigurationEmitter.cpp needs #include <typeinfo>. ValueTracking.cpp needs #include <cstring>. Thanks. --Zhongxing Xu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080603/38f917f4/attachment.html>

Hi Zhongxing, On 4/8/07, Zhongxing Xu <xuzhongxing at gmail.com> wrote: > I think the real difficult thing in path sensitive program analysis (or > symbolic execution) is not the lack of decision procedures, but the > translation of arbitrary pointer operations and library function calls in >...

...byte. And the heap should not be written to. (There is no assignment to b[0] in the C code.) So I guess that %;tmp also holds its original value, which is a pointer to stack of type int. And we can decide which location to store according to the type. Could someone explain this for me? Thanks. -- Zhongxing Xu

...eed to do DFS of call graph. llvm-gcc sometimes generates this kind of call instruction, which cause the call graph to be incomplete. But thanks for your information, instcombine really solves the problem. On 7/17/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Zhongxing Xu wrote: > > The current BasicCallGraph will miss call sites like this: > > %tmp86 = call i8* (...)* bitcast (i8* ()* @find_ispell to i8* (...)*)( ) > > ; <i8*> [#uses=1] > > > > Here the direct user of @find_ispell is a ConstantExpr. > > I added sever...

Please commit. On Aug 20, 2008, at 8:02 PM, Zhongxing Xu wrote: > Index: include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h > =================================================================== > --- include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h (revision 55101) > +++ include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h (working copy) > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ > #include <cassert> > #include &lt...

On Apr 19, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Zhongxing Xu wrote: > Hi all, > > We did some benchmarks on code size with clang, gcc 4.5, and open64. Clang performed second in the test. The benchmark is CSiBE. Clang can't compile the linux kernel (some inline asm not supported) and replaypc (error: use of unknown builtin '__builtin_nex...

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 3:11 AM, Zhongxing Xu <xuzhongxing at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > We did some benchmarks on code size with clang, gcc 4.5, and open64. Clang > performed second in the test. The benchmark is CSiBE. Clang can't compile > the linux kernel (some inline asm not supported) and replaypc (error:...

On Jun 11, 2010, at 12:48 AM, Zhongxing Xu <xuzhongxing at gmail.com> wrote: > I have another idea: let the BasicBlockSDNode points to the last > node in its predecessor blocks. But this will introduce cycles into > the selection DAG, making it not a DAG anymore. > > So what's the impact of a non-DAG on th...

On 29 nov 2010 03:47 "Xu Zhongxing" <xuzhongxing at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > I enjoyed the new coding style in recent patches. Camel case makes it > easy to pick a descriptive name. Starting functions and variables with > lower cases reduces chances to conflict with a type name. On the other hand, having nam...

On Jun 3, 2008, at 6:48 AM, Zhongxing Xu wrote: > Hi, > > On Fedora 9 GCC 4.3, > > LLVMCConfigurationEmitter.cpp needs #include <typeinfo>. > ValueTracking.cpp needs #include <cstring>. Fixed, thanks: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20080602/063303.html -Chris

On 4/9/07, Domagoj Babic <babic.domagoj at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Traditionally, such analyses have been considered too expensive to be > practical, and were mostly an academic curiosity. The core of the > problem is the lack of adequate automated decision procedures which > could quickly determine whether a set of constraints is satisfiable or > not, and if it is

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Zhongxing Xu wrote: > I am doing inter-procedural static analysis, so I need to do DFS of call > graph. llvm-gcc sometimes generates this kind of call instruction, which > cause the call graph to be incomplete. > > But thanks for your information, instcombine really solves the problem. Happy...