similar to: [LLVMdev] Question

Thanks a lot for replying Chris, I m trying to randomize the blocks in a program.I generate a random number( between the current "InsertPos" and the last block), and then iterate through the list of basicblocks , picking up block with position equal to that of the random number and place it into the current InsertPos and increment InsertPos. Running it like this:

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Tanu Sharma wrote: > I have been trying to randomize blocks in a program and modified > "BasicBlockPlacement.cpp" for the purpose but getting segmentation > fault.I am not able to determine the problem.Can anyone please decrypt > these error messages or suggest what might be the possible cause of > failure? I'd be happy to fix this, but I need

Hi, I have been trying to randomize blocks in a program and modified "BasicBlockPlacement.cpp" for the purpose but getting segmentation fault.I am not able to determine the problem.Can anyone please decrypt these error messages or suggest what might be the possible cause of failure? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> Is attached patch acceptable? > > Looks great, applied, thanks! > http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20050131/023931.html Thanks! >> Also I have in Makefile.rules (but not include in patch) some >> modification for simplify used common Makefile.rules in LLVM projects and >> non-LLVM project (guarding some LLVM specific parts by ifdef

Thanks !! But if i generate a .bc file like this and then run my pass over it like this : opt -load /home/llvm-cvs/llvm/Debug/lib/LLVMHello.so -hello <helloprog.bc> class_prog.bc Will the new .bc file (class_prog.bc) be also without optimizations ?opt also does some optimizations.Can I control them ? Thanks Tanu Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: On Mon, 25 Apr 2005,

Hello, I have been trying to compile spec benchmark with llvm.I am trying the 2 methods suggested but have not succeeded yet . 1) Setting the flags -Wl,-native-cbe or -Wl,-native flags to llvm-gcc. This results in successful compilation with llvm BUT it doesn't create .bc files (?)which I need for my experimentation.Any other significant modification/addition missing ?? 2) Using llvm-test :

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Tanu Sharma wrote: > > I have a doubt. > > This is an excerpt of the raw report I get after running Spec benchmarks > through llvm-test.I am trying to calculate the program execution > time.Does the output result in bold corresponds to "lli time" in > Makefile.spec ? I am not interested in llc, jit or cbe.I simply need the > normal

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Tanu Sharma wrote: > Thanks for the reply. > > I wish to compile without optimizations ( the option being turned off ) > but still generate bytecode file. > > Options -S , -c removes optimizations but I also need .bc file to > experiment and use further. Passing "-Wa,-disable-opt -Wl,-disable-opt" will disable *all* cleanup and optimizations

On Mon, 30 May 2005, Tanu Sharma wrote: > I have been trying to compile the SPEC benchmark but have failed even > after several attempts.The first error I get while trying to run is : There are two ways to do this: 1. Use the llvm-test harness 2. Use the official spec harness with -Wl,-native-cbe or -Wl,-native flags to llvm-gcc. -Chris >

I have a doubt. This is an excerpt of the raw report I get after running Spec benchmarks through llvm-test.I am trying to calculate the program execution time.Does the output result in bold corresponds to "lli time" in Makefile.spec ? I am not interested in llc, jit or cbe.I simply need the normal bytecode and native code execution times after running my pass over them.I have modified

Thanks for the reply. I wish to compile without optimizations ( the option being turned off ) but still generate bytecode file. Options -S , -c removes optimizations but I also need .bc file to experiment and use further. How should I do it? Thanks -TS Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Tanu Sharma wrote: > I got very useful replies from dev list

OOps.. I overlooked :-) Thanks Tanu Misha Brukman <brukman at uiuc.edu> wrote: On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 12:18:33PM -0800, Tanu Sharma wrote: > This is exactly what i m trying : > > opt -load /home/tsharma/ankur/llvm/Debug/lib/LLVMHello.so -hello /dev/null Well, you're not saving the output of your pass, it's going to /dev/null. Try: opt -load ... < input.bc >

Hello, I wrote a pass which randomizes basic blocks and insert new block.But when i run another pass over it which simply lists all basic blocks I don't get to see the changes.The bytecode file is not changed.Why is that ? Thanks Tanu --------------------------------- Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web -------------- next part

Hello, I have been trying to compile the SPEC benchmark but have failed even after several attempts.The first error I get while trying to run is : -------------------------------------------------------------------- Error loading program '../00000002/gzip_base.x86_linux.bc': Can't open file: ../00000002/gzip_base.x86_linux.bc

From: Tanu Kaskinen <tanu.kaskinen at linux.intel.com> Not everyone who includes speexdsp_config_types.h will have a test which defines those, and if we've chosen to use the stdint types at configure time then we know exactly which header(s) are available, so just choose the best one then and generate the header to use it. This patch, including the above text, is copied from a commit

Bytecode file attached !! Thanks, Tanu --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20041130/87614d2d/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed...

Thanks for replying, Yes, I think too that the bytecode file is corrupted. This is the file : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks a lot for replying...but I am not doing any deleting or removing node ...I am trying to insert a "new" entry node in an existing list. In another reply I understood (also mentioned on the site) that no other block can branch to the entry block. How do I achieve this ? Is it feasible?Let me know if there is any example. Thanks again, Tanu Chris Lattner <sabre at

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Tanu Sharma wrote: > I created a new block and inserted it into the present basic block list > , but I get this error: > > opt: BasicBlock.cpp:83: virtual llvm::BasicBlock::~BasicBlock(): Assertion `getParent() == 0 && "BasicBlock still linked into the program!"' failed. > > The program completes its task and i get this in the end. I am

Thanks a lot for replying. I have another query. If branching to the entry block is not legal in llvm how should I be able to create a new entry block for any existing list? I created a new block and inserted it into the present basic block list , but I get this error: opt: BasicBlock.cpp:83: virtual llvm::BasicBlock::~BasicBlock(): Assertion `getParent() == 0 && "BasicBlock