similar to: [LLVMdev] Instruction comparison

Dear All, Sorry for the typoes earlier, let me repost the question. Suppose I want to generate sequences of length 3 from two symbols {1,2}, we get the following 8 sequences 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 However, I do not want all these 8 sequences. I call two sequencs to be isomorphic if one sequence could be obtained from the other by relabelling the symbols. For example,

> > > > Also as a side note, I think in the original MachineOutliner RFC thread > there was some confusion as to whether it was possible to solve the code > folding outlining problem exactly as a graph problem on SSA using standard > value numbering algorithms in polynomial time. > > I can elaborate further, but > 1. it is easy to see that you can map an arbitrary

Hi all, Does anyone know of a good solution to the following? I'm trying to find a good way to stably associate distinct ID numbers with different BB in a module. As long as the module's IR hasn't changed in any way whatsoever, I'd like to be guaranteed to always generate the same ID <--> BB mapping. Or if the mapping is ambiguous, because two or more mappings between

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Andrey Bokhanko" <andreybokhanko at gmail.com>, "llvm-dev" > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:02:57 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Interprocedural

On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 02:13:04PM -0600, Tanya Brethour wrote: > > I have been looking over the doxygen documentation as well as the > > llvm code. Is there a standard way to check to see if two > > instructions are identical (i.e., Inst1 == Inst2 does not work)? > > If you want to check if two instructions are the same instruction, you > should be able to just

On 9/29/2020 14:37, David Chisnall via llvm-dev wrote: > On 28/09/2020 15:45, Matt P. Dziubinski via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hey, I noticed this talk from the EuroLLVM 2015 >> (https://llvm.org/devmtg/2015-04/slides/pslp_slides_EUROLLVM2015.pdf) >> on the PSLP vectorization algorithm (CGO 2015 paper: >> http://vporpo.me/papers/pslp_cgo2015.pdf). >> >> Is anyone

Can someone explain the terminology used in the Doxygen comments for EquivalenceClasses? Specifically, what is a "Leader" as opposed to other members of an equivalence class? Say, for example, I want to create a set of equivalence classes to specify subset relationships. Imagine B is a subset of A, C is a subset of B, E is a subset of D and D has no relation to any other set. I'd

Dear R users, i have this problem with matrices i want to check between two matrices if they are isomorphic i will give an example for what excactly i want   1 -1  1                                 -1  1   1 -1   1  -1                                1  -1  -1   1  1   -1                                1   1  -1 this two matrices are isomorphic beacause if i change the first 2 columns the matrices

> > > Yes, this was exactly my point. We want to recognize > structurally-equivalent sequences of instructions on inequivalent operands. > Yes, and my point is "none of the vn and vn-dag generating algorithms care". you can define equivalent to be "structural", you can define it to be "these two variables are equivalent if they both start with

In the current mangling scheme for overloaded intrinsics we include overloaded type names in the intrinsic name. For example: %struct.foobar = type { i32 } declare <4 x %struct.foobar*> @llvm.masked.load.v4p0struct.foobar(<4 x %struct.foobar*>*, i32, <4 x i1>, <4 x %struct.foobar*>) Verifier checks that an overloaded intrinsic name matches with its signature. When

I have been looking over the doxygen documentation as well as the llvm code. Is there a standard way to check to see if two instructions are identical (i.e., Inst1 == Inst2 does not work)? Thanks, Brian Brian M. Fahs Graduate Student University of Illinois

> I have been looking over the doxygen documentation as well as the llvm > code. Is there a standard way to check to see if two instructions are > identical (i.e., Inst1 == Inst2 does not work)? If you want to check if two instructions are the same instruction, you should be able to just compare pointers. -Tanya

On 18 April 2016 at 19:22, Philip Reames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 04/18/2016 09:45 AM, Artur Pilipenko via llvm-dev wrote: > > In the current mangling scheme for overloaded intrinsics we include > overloaded type names in the intrinsic name. For example: > > %struct.foobar = type { i32 } > declare <4 x %struct.foobar*>

Am Mi., 29. Mai 2019 um 13:31 Uhr schrieb Shawn Landden via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 10:49 AM David Jones via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Under certain circumstances, my compiler outputs basic blocks having the same function: > > > > bb_97: ;

On 5/9/07, David Greene <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: > > Can someone explain the terminology used in the Doxygen > comments for EquivalenceClasses? Specifically, what is > a "Leader" as opposed to other members of an equivalence > class? As far as I understand, leader is the first element of the class within the std::set container where all element of all

Is it legal to substitute non struct type instead of opaque type? For example: ; 1.ll declare void @F(i32*) ; 2.ll %T1 = type opaque declare void @F(%T1*) Is it normal to replace T1 with i32 here? If yes. Will the next types are isomorphic?: %T1 = type opaque { i32, %T1* } { i32, i32* } -Stepan.

Hi Daniel, Consider me convinced (not sure you care, but still... :-)) What confused me is that this is not VN in a traditional sense -- it's more like using VN's infrastructure to compute something different. But one can use VN's code for this, indeed. Thank you for the explanation! Yours, Andrey On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:

Dear R users, I want a help to write an algorithm for swapping rows and columns in a matrix thanks in advance [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

> > > I don't agree, but this is because I fail to see how the two > representations (the GCC-like one you've outlined and the current one with > the proposed extension) aren't completely isomorphic. Your proposal is: > > Lots of data structures are completely isomorphic in the same way, and in plenty of those cases, one is completely unusable, and the other

While playing with SLPVectorizer, I notice that it will happily vectorize cases involving extractelement/insertelement, but won't vectorize isomorphic cases involving extractvalue/insertvalue (such as the attached example). Is that something that could be straightforward to add to SLPVectorizer, or are there some hard issue? In particular, the transformation would seem to require casts of