similar to: [LLVMdev] FW: question about malloc call vs. instruction

Hi, i have some code that allocate some memory, store the pointer to a variable, read it back and deallocates it, like this: int %main(int %argc, ubyte** %argv) { %c_19 = alloca ubyte* %malloc_206 = malloc ubyte, uint 10 store ubyte* %malloc_206, ubyte** %c_19 %tmp_207 = load ubyte** %c_19 free ubyte* %tmp_207 ret int 0 } i expected the optimized to remove everything, but after running it the

so i confess i'm still not clear on what the first index into getelementptr is all about. it makes perfect sense for an example like getelementptr %mystruct * %reg100 to just return a %mystruct * equivalent to %reg100. it does *not* make sense to me that getelementptr %mystruct * %reg100, uint 0 should act the same. for look, what this speaks of to me is indexing the first element in an

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Nicola Lugato wrote: > Hi, i have some code that allocate some memory, store the pointer to a > variable, read it back and deallocates it, like this: ok > i expected the optimized to remove everything, but after running it > the code i get is: > > int %main(int %argc, ubyte** %argv) { > %malloc_206 = malloc [10 x ubyte] > %malloc_206.sub =

I've made some other test and it looks like it don't remove even simple malloc/free couple. Maybe there's something wrong in the way i use the opt command. How can i tell him to optimize at best, whitout specifing each pass? I'm not using c/c++ frontend, just the assembler. Thanks in advance On 2/14/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Feb 2007,

Hello! I'm compiling code which uses pointers as iterators. For some reason--probably a silly misunderstanding of the docs--I can't eliminate duplicate pointer loads. I'll probably figure this out eventually, but if somebody else sees the answer instantly, I certainly won't complain. :-) Here are the optimizers I'm running: opt -f -simplifycfg -dce -instcombine

int %nlz10(uint %param.x) { %.t3 = shr uint %param.x, ubyte 1 ; <uint> [#uses=1] %.t4 = or uint %.t3, %param.x ; <uint> [#uses=2] %.t7 = shr uint %.t4, ubyte 2 ; <uint> [#uses=1] %.t8 = or uint %.t7, %.t4 ; <uint> [#uses=2] %.t11 = shr uint %.t8, ubyte 4 ; <uint> [#uses=1]

I have a question about GetElementPtr. Suppose I have an GetElementPtr Instruction GI: %reg = getelementptr %ST* %s, uint 1, ubyte 2, ubyte 1, uint 5, uint 13 I want to check if this is the reference of a component of a structure, how can I do that? Should I check which operand of this instruction is 'ubyte' type? How can I do that in code? should I use ubyte *a =

Hello! I get some odd behaviour using my structs: "myKernelMap" = type {int (sbyte*)*, int ()*} "Kernel" = type {"myKernelMap"*} The second member ( int()* ) is a pointer to the %getchar() function. I want to call getchar using this function: int "callmyKernelgetchar_kernel"("Kernel"* "myKernel") { "PTRMAP" =

You are correct, ubyte 2 simply means 3rd element of the structure. This quantity is always constant (it specifies the field number), so we could have used any signed or unsigned integer type for it instead of ubyte. UByte means we are limited to at most 256 structure fields but it also makes the bytecode representation more compact. (To remove this restriction, we may migrate to UInt in the

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Eric Kidd wrote: > Hello! I'm compiling code which uses pointers as iterators. For some > reason--probably a silly misunderstanding of the docs--I can't eliminate > duplicate pointer loads. I'll probably figure this out eventually, but if > somebody else sees the answer instantly, I certainly won't complain. :-) There are no stupid questions.

The hardware only generates vertexid when vertices come from a VBO. This fixes: vertexid-drawelements vertexid-drawarrays Signed-off-by: Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> Cc: "11.0" <mesa-stable at lists.freedesktop.org> --- src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/nv50/nv50_program.c | 1 + src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/nv50/nv50_program.h | 1 +

On Mon, 3 May 2004, Anders Alexandersson wrote: > Hello! > > I'm having trouble with pointer traversing. I have a design as follows: > class -> map -> classFunctions > > Starting with a pointer to the class, I want to get a pointer to a > classFunction via a pointer to the map. Okay... > I can't get that function pointer! > > How shall I think to get

Anders Alexandersson wrote: > Hello! > > I get some odd behaviour using my structs: > > "myKernelMap" = type {int (sbyte*)*, int ()*} > "Kernel" = type {"myKernelMap"*} > > The second member ( int()* ) is a pointer to the %getchar() function. > > I want to call getchar using this function: > > int

Hello! I'm having trouble with pointer traversing. I have a design as follows: class -> map -> classFunctions Starting with a pointer to the class, I want to get a pointer to a classFunction via a pointer to the map. I can't get that function pointer! How shall I think to get the traversing right (see code below)? Is it something with the fact that I am using only pointers in my

On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:47 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Eric Kidd wrote: >> The duplicate loads appear at the top of the %regex6 and %regex2 >> blocks below. I've tried various alias analysis implementations >> either alone or in combination. > > LICM doesn't remove common subexpressions, also -load-vn doesn't > affect LICM. Try

FAIL: /usr/home/jeffc/llvm/obj/../test/Regression/Transforms/InstCombine/2004-11-27-SetCCForCastLargerAndConstant.ll: %Y = cast sbyte %SB to uint ; <uint> [#uses=1] %Y = cast sbyte %SB to int ; <int> [#uses=1] %Y = cast sbyte %SB to int ; <int> [#uses=1] %Y = cast ubyte %SB to uint ; <uint> [#uses=1] %Y = cast ubyte %SB to

Dear list, I am trying to understand and use the ff package. As I had some problems saving some ff objects, and as I did not fully manage to understand the whole concept of *.ff, *.ffData and *.RData with the help of the documentation, I tried to reproduce the examples from the help of ffsave. When I ran, however : (copied from the help) message("let's create some ff objects")

LegalizeDAG.cpp SDOperand SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeOp(SDOperand Op) { case ISD::RET: Tmp1 = LegalizeOp(Node->getOperand(0)); // Legalize the chain. switch (Node->getNumOperands()) { case 2: // ret val [skipped] case 1: // ret void [skipped] default: { // ret <values> [skipped] Does it imply that a ret instruction may

> Okay, I took a closer look at your output. > > I was correct in that gccas is attempting to assemble a native PPC > assembly language file. However, this appears to be happening because > the assembly file is generated by the GCC Makefiles for libgcc2 (in > llvm-gcc/gcc/config/rs6000/t-ppccomm, I think). > > The first thing I would try is Marco's suggestion: add

Hi Nicola, On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 18:54 +0100, Nicola Lugato wrote: > I've made some other test and it looks like it don't remove even > simple malloc/free couple. Maybe there's something wrong in the way i > use the opt command. No, there's not. LLVM doesn't provide the transform you want. As Chris mentioned, if you open a Bugzilla report (http://llvm.org/bugs) and