similar to: Dominator tree side effect or intentional

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

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

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 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

Hi Chijun, Great, seems like you did a lot of progress and understand the issues quite well! I have done some early sketch on the API of the new updater class. > From my current understanding, to solve the fragmentation problem of > the API, the new class first, need to maintain the DomTree and > PostDomTree class and deprecate the DefferredDominance class. > There are a couple of

Hello, I’m an undergraduate student studying CS in the South China University of Technology. I have been using clang compiler and related tools since I started studying C++ and I would like to work on LLVM in this year’s GSoC. I am interested in “Implement a single updater class for Dominators”. [1] I have achieved a bronze medal in the 2017 ACM-ICPC Asia Xian Regional Contest [2] (being a

Hi Chijun, Thanks for your interest in the project. I have gone through most of the LLVM Kaleidoscope tutorial and I have > watched the video of the presentation “Dominator Trees and incremental > updates that transcend time” presented on the 2017 LLVM Developers’ > Meeting. I have also started to understand the algorithm mentioned in > the comments of the code related to the

Hi Jakub, On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 6:25 AM Jakub (Kuba) Kuderski <kubakuderski at gmail.com> wrote: > There's a lot of heavily templated code in generic DomTee construction/updater, MemSSA updater, and GraphDiff that has become really hard to modify. For the context, Alina (cc'd) was recently looking into making the domtree code work with 'CFG views'; the basic idea is to

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

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

Hi folks, This summer I'm working on improving dominators during my internship at Google. Below is an RFC on switching to dynamic dominators, which you can also read as a Google Doc <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wPYeWykeO51YDPLYQEg4KNTlDIGIdyF65OTfhSMaNHQ/edit?usp=sharing> if you prefer so. Please let us know what you think. ~Kuba

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

> > 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 all, This is a request for comment on a series of patches which introduce a new way of writing algorithms that are generic over different types of CFG. What is this? ============= This series of patches introduces a set of classes and templates for: 1. Working on basic blocks and values generically, in particular with the same algorithm implementation on both LLVM IR and MachineIR (in SSA

Hi all, I am trying to find a sample pass that works on extended basic blocks. Any suggestion or help is very much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Best, Weibo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130408/5492103d/attachment.html>

As far as I know, there is none. Pretty much every analysis or transform on EBBs can be extended to work on the dominator tree, which is what LLVM prefers. Cameron On Apr 8, 2013, at 9:53 PM, Bill He <wh3 at rice.edu> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am trying to find a sample pass that works on extended basic blocks. Any suggestion or help is very much appreciated. > > Thanks in

A polite ping, could someone please share a thought about this? On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 at 21:21, Kristóf Umann <dkszelethus at gmail.com> wrote: > A polite ping on this matter :) > > On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 01:51, Kristóf Umann <dkszelethus at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> As the title suggests, I'd like to generalize llvm::IDFCalculator to be >>

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

This works great. > You can also try using the gllvm wrapper: https://github.com/SRI-CSL/gllvm ; it's quite reliable and easy to use in my experience. Just to be sure. Only one version of bc file will be generated that corresponds to the compiler options provide at configure? The original approach using ld.gold will provide several .bc files that correspond to different stages of the