similar to: sinking in LICM

Hi there, I've been working on rolling out the "deliver" service so we can implement sieve. Dovecot 1.2.11, Postfix 2.6.6, FreeBSD 8, installed by ports. Clustered environment, NFS backend. Everything is working great for the most part, I'm using it to sort a copy of my personal email on a test server. However, I noticed two emails were not properly sorted. I had added a

Sorry, %3 instead of %4. 2011/9/14 Rafael Baldiati Parizi <parizi.computacao at gmail.com> > Hello, > I created a new block for execution to continue, but I got the case in > which a statement defined in a block is used in another, not dominate all > uses. > For example: > > entry: > %n_addr = alloca i32, align 4 > %retval = alloca i32 > %"alloca

Hello, I created a new block for execution to continue, but I got the case in which a statement defined in a block is used in another, not dominate all uses. For example: entry: %n_addr = alloca i32, align 4 %retval = alloca i32 %"alloca point" = bitcast i32 0 to i32 store i32 %n, i32* %n_addr %0 = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* noalias getelementptr inbounds ([20 x i8]*

Ok! I do understand. Thanks by help! 2011/9/5 Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Rafael Baldiati Parizi < > parizi.computacao at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yes, that's how I'm doing now ... create a new block where the execution >> flow will continue after the shift, following the basics of basic blocks.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Jeff Cohen wrote: > I noticed that fourinarow is one of the programs in which LLVM is much slower > than GCC, so I decided to take a look and see why that is so. The program > has many loops that look like this: > > #define ROWS 6 > #define COLS 7 > > void init_board(char b[COLS][ROWS+1]) > { > int i,j; > > for

Sorry, I thought I was running selection dag isel but I screwed up when trying out the really big array. You're right, it does clean it up except for the multiplication. So LoopStrengthReduce is not ready for prime time and doesn't actually get used? I might consider whipping it into shape. Does it still have to handle getelementptr in its full generality? Chris Lattner wrote:

Hi, I was trying to use CloneBasicBlock() (in Cloning.h) to clone basic blocks in one of my transform passes. For example, when I have a basic block like: bb1: ; preds = %bb load i32* %i, align 4 ; <i32>:11 [#uses=2] load i32* %n_addr, align 4 ; <i32>:12 [#uses=2] icmp slt i32 %11, %12 ; <i1>:13 [#uses=2] cloning it gives something like: bb1_clone: ; preds = %entry

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Jeff Cohen wrote: > Sorry, I thought I was running selection dag isel but I screwed up when > trying out the really big array. You're right, it does clean it up except > for the multiplication. > > So LoopStrengthReduce is not ready for prime time and doesn't actually get > used? I don't know what the status of it is. You could try it out,

I noticed that fourinarow is one of the programs in which LLVM is much slower than GCC, so I decided to take a look and see why that is so. The program has many loops that look like this: #define ROWS 6 #define COLS 7 void init_board(char b[COLS][ROWS+1]) { int i,j; for (i=0;i<COLS;i++) for (j=0;j<ROWS;j++) b[i][j]='.';

Hi all, I'm rather new to LLVM and intend to dive into partial evaluation with LLVM. I tried to run the example from http://llvm.org/devmtg/2008-08-23/llvm_partial.pdf, which worked after some adaptations, which were necessary, because LLVM evolved since the slides were made. However, I also tried to get the same example running as an optimization pass following the instructions in

Hi all, while writing a testcase thate needed to do a grep containg {, I found that the DejaGNU test framework didn't handle those very well. It's a bit of a fuss to escape accolades properly, but most of all the framework seemed to silently ignore errors in the escaping (and just not run the command then). See [1]. Fixing the framework resulted in 80 of the tests failing. I spent the

We have a checkpassword authentication with mysql pre-fetch for the userdb lookups. When trying to do: doveadm search -u andytest at xecu.net mailbox Trash DELETED I get: doveadm(andytest at xecu.net): Error: user andytest at xecu.net: Auth PASS lookup failed doveadm(andytest at xecu.net): Fatal: /var/run/dovecot/auth-userdb: passdb lookup failed (to see if user is proxied, because

Tom, I think it might be productive to fork this thread to discuss making the requirements for upstreaming a new LLVM target more explicit and open. I'd also like to gauge interest in an idea I've discussed privately with a few community members, namely the concept of having a semi-official "incubation" system whereby proposed backends could get a trial run before becoming part