similar to: Signed or unsigned EQ/NEQ

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 01:59:55PM -0800, Dan Gohman wrote: > The bug here isn't in clang's use of noalias or in BasicAliasAnalysis' > implementation of noalias; it's in the code that's optimizing the > icmp. Let's come back to this. The attached patch decouples InstSimplify from the alias analysis and provides the conservative logic for when pointers are not

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:01:01AM -0800, Dan Gohman wrote: >> > Is that >> > assumption violated if I explicitly cast away const and pass the result >> > to a function with NoAlias argument? >> >> Not immediately, no. It means that you can't access the

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:01:01AM -0800, Dan Gohman wrote: > > Is that > > assumption violated if I explicitly cast away const and pass the result > > to a function with NoAlias argument? > > Not immediately, no. It means that you can't access the constant > pointer's pointee directly within the noalias argument's scope. Access > to that object must go

Hello, I have been using the USE class to access the use-def chains of different values. However, what I have noticed is that the set of users of a particular value is limited for the appearance of that variable in the current function. How can I get the interprocedural use of a particular value? For example, if a variable *a* is used as an argument in a function call *foo*, the USE analysis

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 3:05 PM Dounia Khaldi via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Thanks for your reply. > > Yes, I was about to recurse over the use list of the argument in the > called function. I did not want to pursue that because with this solution, > I am going to implement the interprocedural part myself and was wondering > if that was not already

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I was about to recurse over the use list of the argument in the called function. I did not want to pursue that because with this solution, I am going to implement the interprocedural part myself and was wondering if that was not already done. I was not also 100% sure that this will work for any type of arguments. If, based on your response, this is my only solution

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:53:55AM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > Let's come back to this. The attached patch decouples InstSimplify from > the alias analysis and provides the conservative logic for when pointers > are not equal. Let's take the version with the cleanup from IRC. *sigh* Dealing with too many copies. Joerg -------------- next part -------------- Index:

Hi all: I am trying to compare the return value of a call instruction with 0. The called function's return type is uint32. The return value is 1 or 0. But the icmp instruction cannot be created. CallInst *ret = CallInst::Create(ptr_func, params.begin(), params.end(), "", bb); Value *cmp = new ICmpInst(*bb, ICmpInst::ICMP_EQ, ret, ,ConstantInt::get(getIntegerType(32), 0)

I'm part of a research group at MIT looking to create an extension of LLVM that inherently allows one to nicely code a parallel loop. Most parallel frameworks tend to take the body of a parallel loop and stick it inside of a function for the parallel runtime to call when appropriate. However, this makes optimizations significantly more difficult as most compiler optimizations tend to be

Sorry, I'm a bit confused by your reply. I think part of my problem is I can only think of this in terms of Passes. For instance, my pass looks for assignments and tries to use the same pointer operand, before the assignment it finds. Like this: new ICmpInst(*block, CmpInst::ICMP_NE, shadow, store->getPointerOperand(), "Shadow check"); So I'm not sure how alloca

Dear community, In preparation for the BoF on Parallel IR at the US developers meeting we would like to collect feedback from the whole community. The concerns, ideas, etc. will be summarized in the BoF and should provide a good starting point for a discussion. We know that over the years the topic of a parallel extension for LLVM was discussed on the mailing list [0, 1, 2], workshops [3, 4] or

On 9/19/11 2:48 PM, ret val wrote: > Sorry, I'm a bit confused by your reply. I think part of my problem is > I can only think of this in terms of Passes. > > For instance, my pass looks for assignments and tries to use the same > pointer operand, before the assignment it finds. Like this: > new ICmpInst(*block, CmpInst::ICMP_NE, shadow, >

hi all, i am have a project need to compute the back-edge taken count of a loop, and the "getBackedgeTakenCount" function of ScalarEvolution could do this for me. but later i found that ScalarEvolution could not compute loops with test expression containing a "=", such as: void scop_func(long A[], long n) { long i; for (i = 1; i<= n; i++) A[i] = 1; } after have

Hello, I was implementing the llvm_any_type in my intrinsic def int_csa_xxx : Intrinsic<[llvm_any_ty], [llvm_i32_ty]>; as the following in its corresponding builtins in Builtins.def: BUILTIN(__builtin_xxx, "v.", "nt") the "t" was sufficient here to not perform any type checking. The type checking was handled in CGBuiltin.cpp. This was working until

At least one proprietary linker put a lot of effort into deduplicating and rewriting debug information. This took up the majority of the link time despite serious engineering time on performance optimisation. For example, some sections were written from scratch by the linker because that proved faster than parsing the input. Teaching LLD to dedup DWARF should be expected to dramatically slow it

Hello , I have build llvm from release_38 branch ( only llvm and clang ) and install it. My DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH points to installation-directory/lib. I am compiling example files for Kaleidoscope with following command : clang++ -g toy.cpp -std=c++11 `llvm-config --cxxflags --ldflags --system-libs --libs core mcjit native` -O3 -o toy but it fails with following error: Undefined symbols for

Sanjoy, Joseph, and I will be hosting a BoF on using LLVM to build compilers for managed languages. We're curious to hear who's planning on attending and what topics you'd like to hear about. Depending on the expected audience, we're happy to do anything between a rough "what to expect getting started" to a down in the weeds working session on relevant optimization

Are the ICMP and FCMP instructions meant to accept vectors operands or no? Verifier excludes vectors, as does the AsmParser[1]. But the CmpInst constructor accepts vectors[2], and they are documented as allowed: > If the operands [of icmp or fcmp] are packed typed, the elements of > the vector are compared in turn and the predicate must hold for all > elements. — Gordon [1]

%0 = icmp eq i32 %y, 0 In the above instruction how can i know that the comparison is equality comparison?? --Rajwinder Singh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100628/8d8e5cb1/attachment.html>

Sure On Mon, Jul 4, 2016, 9:40 AM Carlos Liam <carlos at aarzee.me> wrote: > It looks like there's already something similar in PropagateEquality which > eg X >= Y == true and replaces X < Y == false, which is somewhat similar - > could I base an addition off of that? > > > - CL > > On Jul 3, 2016, at 7:13 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>