similar to: [LLVMdev] Basic Block Chaining

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Reid Spencer wrote: > Newbie Question .. (sorry if its redundant/silly) .. No worries, this is good stuff to have archived on the list! > As I've started to develop Stacker, I had assumed that simply adding > BasicBlocks to a function in sequence would imply that there is an > implicit unconditional branch from the end of one basic block to the > start

Attached 2012/2/8 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > Mmm, sorry, the patch I posted crashes if ExitBr is null (which it may > be ...) , this one should be ok (and passess all the ScalarEvolution > tests in LLVM): > > diff --git a/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp b/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp > index daf7742..b10fab2 100644 > ---

Hello, I'm finding problems with BackEdgeTaken count calculation in even simple fortran loops with gfortran-4.6 + DragonEgg 3.0. Even for simple double loops like this one: program test2 integer i,j,k dimension k(100,100) do j=1,100 do i=1,100 k(i,j) = i enddo enddo write(*,*) k(1,30) end make the ScalarEvolution

Well, it wasn't intended as a "real" patch to be included , but more as a "proof of concept" for a solution. Do you think it is a valid solution and I'm correct in my assumption? If so then I'll clean up the patch and attach a testcase for inclusion. Thanks! Marcello 2012/2/9 Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com>: > Your patch should include a testcase,

This is the .ll for that graph (attached). I think I understand what you are saying. This particular testcase returns CNC not because the exit block doesn't have a unique predecessor, but because the unique predecessor (the inner loop block) has a successor that is inside the loop (in this case itself, because it's the inner loop block). That doesn't change, anyway, the assuption that

Your patch should include a testcase, see test/Analysis/ScalarEvolution for examples. "BranchInst* " should be "BranchInst *". You should have spaces after the // in your comments. One of the comment lines isn't indented properly. Nick On 8 February 2012 12:05, Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com> wrote: > Attached > > 2012/2/8 Marcello Maggioni

Mmm, sorry, the patch I posted crashes if ExitBr is null (which it may be ...) , this one should be ok (and passess all the ScalarEvolution tests in LLVM): diff --git a/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp b/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp index daf7742..b10fab2 100644 --- a/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp +++ b/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp @@ -4293,9 +4293,15 @@

On 8 February 2012 15:50, Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com> wrote: > Well, it wasn't intended as a "real" patch to be included , but more > as a "proof of concept" for a solution. Do you think it is a valid > solution and I'm correct in my assumption? If so then I'll clean up > the patch and attach a testcase for inclusion. > I'm

This is instead a very simple (handmade) test case that triggers the problem (attached) Also a more conforming patch has been attached 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > This is the .ll for that graph (attached). I think I understand what > you are saying. > This particular testcase returns CNC not because the exit block > doesn't have a unique predecessor,

FInally I had the time to complete everything up. Now I included the test case in the patch and the testcase runs with the LLVM tests system. 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > This is instead a very simple (handmade) test case that triggers the > problem (attached) > Also a more conforming patch has been attached > > 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms

Your question isn't clear; please restate what specifically isn't working. -Eli On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Rasha Omar <rasha.sala7 at gmail.com> wrote: > or like this > > %cmp4 = icmp eq i32 %rem, 0 > > br i1 %cmp4, label %if.then5, label %if.else7 > > > On 14 August 2013 20:08, Rasha Omar <rasha.sala7 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi

Hi All, How could I use BranchInst to implement for example br label %if.else7 br label %if.then5 br i1 %cmp4, label %if.then5, label %if.else7 I can use BranchInst for only one instruction but how could I compare between two branches Thanks -- * Rasha Salah Omar Msc Student at E-JUST Demonestrator at Faculty of Computers and Informatics Benha University* *

How could BranchInst be used to insert new branch between two basic blocks to get result like this example: br label %if.else br label %if.then br i1 %cmp1, label %if.then, label %if.else Thanks for your help On 14 August 2013 21:36, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > Your question isn't clear; please restate what specifically isn't working. > > -Eli

Moving to LLVM dev to discuss the possibility of extending the cast infrastructure to handle this. On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:51 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > On Nov 18, 2012, at 5:05 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> TypeLoc casting looks bogus. >> >> TypeLoc derived types return true from classof when the dynamic type >>

Hi All, I am trying to write code for simple instrumentation. What I want to do is to insert a call to an external function for result of each conditional branch instruction. This external function simply print true or false based on the result of condition. The modified code is then written into new file. However when I try to link that file with another bitcode file (containing external

or like this %cmp4 = icmp eq i32 %rem, 0 br i1 %cmp4, label %if.then5, label %if.else7 On 14 August 2013 20:08, Rasha Omar <rasha.sala7 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > How could I use BranchInst to implement for example > br label %if.else7 > br label %if.then5 > br i1 %cmp4, label %if.then5, label %if.else7 > > I can use BranchInst for only one

Hi, I got a problem when I am trying to add a dummy basic block. Let say there are two blocks, A and B. A----->B I am trying to generate new BB called C which is located between A and B, but not break the edge of AB. The graph is like the following A---->B \ / \ / C There is new BB 'C' with edges AC and CB. It is kind of like what breakcriticaledge pass does.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > That's pretty cute actually. Do you want this "brilliant" :) example in the cvs > repository? I'd be happy to put it in. Here's an idea: how about we take the ModuleMaker, Valery's previous example, and this one and put them all in one "small examples" project? -Chris > Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > >

Hi LLVMers, the example attached I have used to prove that JIT and some visible optimizations are really invoked. Proved OK. I got 30% speed-up in comparison to gcc 3.3.3 on my Athlon XP 1500. Nice. P.S. guys, no fears, I don't plan to flood the cvs repository with my "brilliant" examples ;) --- Valery A.Khamenya -------------- next part -------------- An

hi, my code inherits InstVisitor class, and visitBranchInst() method. however, i notice that inside the virtual method visitBranchInst(BranchInst &I), on the LLVM instruction like: br i1 %1, label %2, label %3 my code doesnt return expected info. for ex, the code I.getCondition->getName().str() would return empty string. and at the same time, the code I.getSuccessor(0)->getName()