similar to: CFG normalization: avoiding `br i1 false`

> I'm not necessarily sympathetic to the idea of adding another canonicalization pass only for this purpose. The problem is that as you said, SimplifyCfg does all sorts of stuff, and I suspect is not the fastest pass in the world. Also, in the case that annoys me, there is an LCSSA pass in the middle, and I suspect it would be a better idea to only do the LCSSA etc. transform again if no

There's already a LoopSimplifyCFG which is a loop-pass (and thus can iterate with other loop passes) and eliminates trivial branches.  Having a simple pass which just strips unreachable blocks and converts conditional branches to unconditional ones while updating appropriate analyzes (LoopInfo, DomTree, LCSSA, etc..) seems very reasonable.  This could also be a utility function called

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > There's already a LoopSimplifyCFG which is a loop-pass (and thus can iterate > with other loop passes) and eliminates trivial branches. Having a simple > pass which just strips unreachable blocks and converts conditional branches > to unconditional ones while updating appropriate analyzes

Hi Davide, > On Nov 29, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Philip Reames > <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: >> There's already a LoopSimplifyCFG which is a loop-pass (and thus can iterate >> with other loop passes) and eliminates trivial branches. Having a simple

[ + cc llvm-dev]. This came up again internally and I realized I hadn’t cc’ed llvm-dev in my original response. Anna On Dec 4, 2017, at 7:06 PM, Anna Thomas via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: Hi Davide, On Nov 29, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at

> we lower llvm.objectsize later than we should Is there a well-accepted best (or even just better) place to lower objectsize? I ask because I sorta fear that these kinds of problems will become more pronounced as llvm.is.constant, which is also lowered in CGP, gains popularity. (To be clear, I think it totally makes sense to lower is.constant and objectsize in the same place. I'm just

Rust pattern matching code can sometimes generate very redundant LLVM IR, in which several branches contain exactly the same code. LLVM successfully unifies that, but the dispatching mechanism does not simplify accordingly. I created a gist here: https://gist.github.com/ranma42/d2e6d50999e801ffd4ed (based on two examples available in Rust issues:

Hi, I have come across a couple of cases where the code generated after CodeGenPrepare pass has "br i1 false .." with both true and false conditions preserved and this propagates further and remains the same in the final assembly code/executable. In CodeGenPrepare::runOnFunction, ConstantFoldTerminator (which handles the br i1 false condition) is called only once and if after the

Hi, This is Ariel from the Rust team again. I am having another pass ordering issue. Looking at the pass manager at https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/7034870f30320d6fbc74effff539d946018cd00a/lib/Transforms/IPO/PassManagerBuilder.cpp (the early SimplifyCfg now doesn't sink stores anymore! I can't wait until I can get to use that in rustc!) I find that the loop optimization group

From: Hiroyuki_Katsura <hiroyuki.katsura.0513@gmail.com> Rust bindings: Add create / close functions Rust bindings: Add 4 bindings tests Rust bindings: Add generator of structs Rust bindings: Add generator of structs for optional arguments Rust bindings: Add generator of function signatures Rust bindings: Complete actions Rust bindings: Fix memory management Rust bindings: Add

On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 10:14:19PM +0900, Hiroyuki Katsura wrote: >From: Hiroyuki_Katsura <hiroyuki.katsura.0513@gmail.com> > >--- > Makefile.am | 4 ++++ > configure.ac | 3 +++ > generator/Makefile.am | 3 +++ > generator/bindtests.ml | 3 +++ > generator/bindtests.mli | 1 + > generator/main.ml | 5 +++++ > generator/rust.ml

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 05:06:04PM +0900, Hiroyuki Katsura wrote: > From: Hiroyuki_Katsura <hiroyuki.katsura.0513@gmail.com> > > --- > generator/rust.ml | 13 ++++++++--- > run.in | 9 ++++++++ > rust/Cargo.lock | 6 +++++ > rust/Cargo.toml | 4 +--- > rust/tests/010_load.rs

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 06:27:05PM +0900, Hiroyuki Katsura wrote: > > I guess this is a stray debug message? > > Yes. I'm sorry... > > > we did *not* check them into git. > > Really? Does it mean that every time you build the library, Cargo.toml is > generated? That's how it has worked in nbdkit. Whether it's right or not I don't know. Normally

I found a bug in the bindings, so I fixed it. I'm sorry about sending you the patch many times. Regards, Hiroyuki 2019年7月20日(土) 16:23 Hiroyuki Katsura <hiroyuki.katsura.0513@gmail.com>: > From: Hiroyuki_Katsura <hiroyuki.katsura.0513@gmail.com> > > Rust bindings: Add create / close functions > > Rust bindings: Add 4 bindings tests > > Rust bindings: Add

Hello, I am trying to replicate the output from opt -O3 foo.bc -o foo.opt.bc by specifying the individual passes instead of the -O3 flag. Looking at the passes from opt -O3 foo.bc -o foo.bc -debug-pass=Executions it seems there are two passes being run. When I run the flags indicated for the two passes specified in the 'Pass Arguments:' as two sequential opt processes or a single opt

This patch includes: - Event callback handlers - Tests related to events(410-430) --- generator/rust.ml | 38 ++++++- rust/src/base.rs | 24 +++-- rust/src/error.rs | 8 +- rust/src/event.rs | 158 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ rust/src/lib.rs | 2 + rust/tests/040_create_multiple.rs | 2 +-

> Is this just trying if the guestfs can be linked with? Yes. In OCaml bindings, there is the corresponding test( https://github.com/libguestfs/libguestfs/blob/master/ocaml/t/guestfs_010_load.ml). I just mimicked it. If it is not required, I will remove it. divided the generated files and handmade files in rust/src/ directory. I'll send this fixed patch to this mailing list. I'm not

On Monday, 5 August 2019 08:59:31 CEST Hiroyuki Katsura wrote: > Without clarifying handle's lifetime, it is unable > to see how long the callbacks which the handle > owns will live. Then, Rust compiler will infer > that the callbacks have 'static lifetime. It is > not convenient for users. > --- My initial idea was to split the Handle -> Handle<'a> change

This used to be a single patch, but I split it into two with the addition of struct Scatterlist. Again a bit new with Rust submissions. I was told by Gary Guo to rebase on top of rust-next, but it seems *very* behind? The first patch does not build on its own due to a dead_code warning. It is hard to not have dead code when one is adding infrastructure to be used by others at a later

Dear Richard, > We have tended to avoid this in other languages because the results > can be very poor quality (eg. swig bindings are usually terrible). > However if the resulting code from bindgen is high quality and > accurately covers all the features that libguestfs bindings need then > we can consider it. Thank you for your reply. Actually, I have not used bindgen and I