search for: zswater

...hether use_iterator should even have an > operator * for the use_iterator_impl<Use> case. ISTM to basically > always be a bug (though this is an idle thought, i haven't thought > through the implications at all). > > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Zack Waters <zswaters at gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Dan and Jon. I made an incorrect assumption that the "use" > iterator > > was actually giving me the "user" when de-referencing it. > > > > Did it always have this behavior in previous LLVM versions? I've seen &g...

Hi, Are there any plans to integrate an autovectorizer for SPMD programs into LLVM? For example, there were previous discussions about integrating the whole function vectorizer (WFV) from Ralf Karrenberg into LLVM. Thanks, Zack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Thanks Dan and Jon. I made an incorrect assumption that the "use" iterator was actually giving me the "user" when de-referencing it. Did it always have this behavior in previous LLVM versions? I've seen lots of examples of the "use" iterator being dereferenced and resulting Instruction pointer being treated as the "user"? Thanks, Zack On Tue, Jun 9,

Hi, I'm having a problem with the use iterator. Each "use" that I see, when using the use_iterator, is the same as the "def". Meaning, in the code below the pDef is always equal to pUse pointer for every instruction in all basic blocks (except terminators). for (auto i = inst_begin(f), ie = inst_end(f); i != ie; ++i) Instruction* pDef =