similar to: [RFC] Add SeaHorn and Crab-llvm to Users.html

Hi Ma, how can I transform the llvm.memcpy into data move loop IR and eliminate > the bitcast instruction ? > I'm not sure why you are concerned about memcpy and bitcasts, but if you call MCpyInst->getSource() and MCpyInst->getDest() it will look through casts and give you the 'true' source/destination. If you want to get rid of memcpy altogether, you can take a look

Hi, I'm looking for interprocedural AAs and have, of course, found https://llvm.org/docs/AliasAnalysis.html. However, the AAs that come bundled with LLVM do not work interprocedurally in a way that I need it (on/with stack variables). The two interesting looking AAs come with the optional `poolalloc' module that hasn't been updated in years (I guess

On 31 Jan 2018, at 17:36, Jakub (Kuba) Kuderski via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > If you want to get rid of memcpy altogether, you can take a look at this pass: https://github.com/seahorn/seahorn/blob/master/lib/Transforms/Scalar/PromoteMemcpy.cc . There are at least four different places in LLVM where memcpy intrinsics are expanded to either sequences of

Hello, I’m trying to port a project up to 4.0 and I’m seeing the following error: In file included from /Users/jaredcarlson/Projects/llvm-4.0.0.src/include/llvm/ADT/StringRef.h:13: /Users/jaredcarlson/Projects/llvm-4.0.0.src/include/llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h:139:13: error: no type named 'type' in 'std::__1::result_of<std::__1::pointer_to_unary_function<llvm::DSNode *, llvm::DSNode

Hi Craig Thank you very much ！ 2018-01-30 16:11 GMT+08:00 Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com>: > The pointers must always be i8* the alignment is independent and is > controlled by the attributes on the arguments in the call to memcpy. > > ~Craig > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:45 PM, ma jun <jun.parser at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi >> >>

Hi Alberto, I have not used this myself, but I think you should be able to visit your Instruction ‘users()’. I think the name this function was given is a bit confusing, but this returns an iterator range you can iterate through to find instructions that depend on a given one. Similarly, you have the function ‘uses()’ that can be used to traverse down the DAG when instructions are still on SSA

Dear Developers, I am a Master's student at the ECE department of the University of Florida, USA.​​ For my research project, supervised by Prof. Mark Tehranipoor<http://tehranipoor.ece.ufl.edu/> and Prof. Farimah Farahmandi<http://farimah.ece.ufl.edu/>, I need to use Clang LLVM DataflowSanitizer library in KLEE. However, I have faced some difficulties (explained below) while

> > but doesn't emit optnone and nounwind attributes > s/nounwind/noinline On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:35 AM Jakub (Kuba) Kuderski < kubakuderski at gmail.com> wrote: > As far as I understand, gllvm doesn't run LTO pipeline or any cross-module > optimization, and the optimization level provided is only used to compile > each Translation Unit separately. > If you

Hi folks, I’m working on adding an API for incremental updates to DominatorTree and I noticed that there isn’t a simple way to quickly build and update CFG (just for testing) -- one has to either build CFG programmatically, or write IR by hand and manually map pointers to basic blocks. The downside is that it tends to be pretty verbose and not easy to update (e.g. adding a new edge often involves

Hi folks, For the past month I’ve been working on improving the DominatorTree and PostDominatorTree in LLVM. The RFC that explains the motivations and plans can be found here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-June/114045.html . Here’s a short summary of what changed upstream since posting it: - We switched from the Simple Lengauer-Tarjan algorithm for computing dominators

The pointers must always be i8* the alignment is independent and is controlled by the attributes on the arguments in the call to memcpy. ~Craig On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:45 PM, ma jun <jun.parser at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > > 2018-01-30 15:36 GMT+08:00 ma jun <jun.parser at gmail.com>: > >> Hi >> Thanks ! >> so for this example >>

Hi Kuba, Thanks for your clarification on the project in the previous letter. I have submitted a proposal draft at the GSoC website, the draft has been shared with the LLVM organization. I will appreciate it if you can give me some advice on the proposal. This draft can be viewed by the organization. (If you do not have access, please mail me, and I will give you the link.) I am looking forward

Hello, I was wondering whether or not some behaviour that I am seeing is expected behaviour and that it has been designed like this, or not. A dominator relation is given by "if A dominates B", then all paths to B go through A. For example, take the CFG below (which is a directed graph (couldn’t make the arrow heads but ok.): A / \ B C \ / D | E We can construct

Hi Kuba, Thanks for your feedback. I have made some improvements on the proposal according to your feedback and clarify something on the time availability. I left comments on the questions you asked in the doc. Please check it out. Thanks, Chijun 2018-03-22 10:37 GMT+08:00 Jakub (Kuba) Kuderski <kubakuderski at gmail.com>: > Hi Chijun, > > I left you my feedback in the doc (+

Hi Chijun, I left you my feedback in the doc (+ some nitpicks). Overall, it looks very solid and shows you understand the problem well and know what to expect. Your proposed timeline is reasonable and I don't see any major things to improve there. Don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions related to my comments (either here or in the document). Thanks, Kuba On Wed, Mar 21,

Hi, Suppose I have the following data frame. __BEGIN__ > library(MASS) > data(crabs) > crab.pca <- prcomp(crabs[,4:8],retx=TRUE) > crab.pca$rotation PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 FL 0.2889810 0.3232500 -0.5071698 0.7342907 0.1248816 RW 0.1972824 0.8647159 0.4141356 -0.1483092 -0.1408623 CL 0.5993986 -0.1982263 -0.1753299 -0.1435941 -0.7416656 CW

Hi Tobias, 1) Daniel and Chandler have for a long time been talking about computing > dominance and post-dominance in one shot to reduce the cost of > post-dominance and make it (freely) available everywhere. Is this > covered by your current (or planned) work? I'm not sure what you exactly mean by one shot; I'll ask around tomorrow. I wanted to play a little bit with your

Hi Jakub! On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 17:01, Jakub (Kuba) Kuderski <kubakuderski at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Kristóf, > > >> 1. I read the article IDFCalculator is based on[1], but I found no >> references to IDFCalculator::setLiveInBlocks, and the file header seems to >> confirm that it's an implementation specific thing. Could I get away >> restricting the

Hi Kuba, Thanks for your advice in your previous letter. During last week, I have read the documents on Doxygen and the source code of the DomTreeBase/DomTree/PostDomTree/DeferredDominance class, I believe now I have a much better understanding on the relationship between these classes and how DeferredDominance class performs lazy updates. I have also learnt the current usage and drawbacks of

Btw, here is another interesting paper about post-dominators and control dependence: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cbb2/9a0e4895025bd9df24f9263217df12f1ed1e.pdf I think a great outcome of your internship would be some precise documentation regarding the guarantees the LLVM dominators give -- possibly also considering classic and weak control dependence and the difference between