similar to: [LLVMdev] newbie question - selecting the write kind of pass

On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 11:35:30AM -0600, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote: > > I want to create a simple map from a Value to the instruction that > > defines it. Such a map is present inside SchedGraph, but I need it in > > a much simpler context. > > Is this in the context of the code generator? No ... I am just trying to feel

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote: > I want to create a simple map from a Value to the instruction that > defines it. Such a map is present inside SchedGraph, but I need it in > a much simpler context. Is this in the context of the code generator? > If I got it right, I create a new AnalysisGroup, and write a pass that > implements it. What kind of pass should I

Hi, Tried to build the 1.6 release on Debian unstable, but ran into link problems for some utils ... Copying the messages when building llc, the same error occurs for lli, llvm-db and some of the examples. Is this a problem with the compiler version? LLVMSelectionDAG.o itself builds correctly. make[2]: Entering directory `/home/sameerds/data/llvm-1.6/tools/llc' llvm[2]: Linking Debug

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote: > On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 11:35:30AM -0600, Chris Lattner wrote: > >> On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote: >>> I want to create a simple map from a Value to the instruction that >>> defines it. Such a map is present inside SchedGraph, but I need it in >>> a much simpler context. >>

Hi, The docs available on illuvium.com are different from the one's present in the doxygen tarball on the same page ... can the tarball be generated from the same docs as the browseable version? I considered crawling the illuvium.com site, but it would be better to simply have a tarball available. I tried generating the docs myself ... doxygen simply refuses to create pages for classes

Marco Matthies wrote: >> make[2]: Entering directory `/home/sameerds/data/llvm-1.6/tools/llc' >> llvm[2]: Linking Debug executable llc >> `.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNK4llvm14TargetLowering12getValueTypeEPKNS_4TypeE' >> referenced >> in section `.rodata' of >> /home/sameerds/data/llvm-1.6/Debug/lib/LLVMSelectionDAG >> .o: defined in discarded

Just noticed that quite a few passes like LoopSimplify are implemented in a single .cpp file ... this makes it impossible to specify LoopSimplify using the "addRequired" method. Was there any particular reason to do it this way? I wouldn't mind doing the splitting myself, though I am not using the CVS versions right now. Also, it would be nice to have support for some sort of a

On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 08:10:17AM -0500, Chris Lattner wrote: > AU.addRequiredID(LoopSimplifyID); > > "LoopSimplifyID" is a marker that is used to identify the pass, which is > exported from the .cpp file. I'll have to declare a PassInfo* called LoopSimplifyID inside namespace llvm, in order for that to compile correctly, right? I was wondering why not simply

Recently wrote a pass that inserts a preheader for a loop that doesn't have one. When I tried to run it, I ran into a problem that became obvious in hindsight - the PHINodes need to be updated in places where the incoming control-edge has changed. Is there anything else that can be affected when a block is inserted into the CFG? Also, planning to write a helper function which will take care

Chris Lattner wrote: >> I tried generating the docs myself ... doxygen simply refuses to >> create pages for classes defined in anonymous namespaces in cpp files. >> I enabled options such as EXTRACT_ALL, EXTRACT_PRIVATE and >> EXTRACT_LOCAL, but no luck. How is the publicly available >> documentation generated? > > They are generated from the Makefile in

Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote: > Hi, > > Tried to build the 1.6 release on Debian unstable, but ran into link > problems for some utils ... > > Copying the messages when building llc, the same error occurs for lli, > llvm-db and some of the examples. Is this a problem with the compiler > version? LLVMSelectionDAG.o itself builds correctly. > > make[2]: Entering

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote: > The docs available on illuvium.com are different from the one's present in > the doxygen tarball on the same page ... can the tarball be generated from > the same docs as the browseable version? I considered crawling the > illuvium.com site, but it would be better to simply have a tarball available. Agreed. I have been

On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 10:32:18PM -0500, Chris Lattner wrote: > We could definitely expose the pass class itself, but there are no > implementation details or any other state that is useful. Yeah ... this, and Transforms/Scalar.h answer my original original question about why a lot of passes are present as a single CPP. The whole LLVM code generally abhors including class definitions

On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 11:22:26PM -0500, Chris Lattner wrote: > BasicBlock *SplitBlockPredecessors(BasicBlock *BB, const char *Suffix, > const std::vector<BasicBlock*> &Preds); > > Basically, given a BB with multiple predecessors, it inserts (and returns) > a new block, moving the predecessors in Preds to the new block and leaving

In LLVM 1.5, the function isLoopHeader fails to check for a null pointer after calling getLoopFor. Dunno if this is fixed in CVS, but attaching a patch anyway ... Sameer. -- Research Scholar, KReSIT, IIT Bombay http://www.it.iitb.ac.in/~sameerds/ -------------- next part -------------- --- LoopInfo.h 2005-06-29 17:42:43.000000000 +0530 +++ llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/LoopInfo.h 2005-06-29

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote: > Just noticed that quite a few passes like LoopSimplify are implemented > in a single .cpp file ... this makes it impossible to specify > LoopSimplify using the "addRequired" method. Was there any particular > reason to do it this way? I wouldn't mind doing the splitting myself, > though I am not using the CVS

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 08:10:17AM -0500, Chris Lattner wrote: > >> AU.addRequiredID(LoopSimplifyID); >> >> "LoopSimplifyID" is a marker that is used to identify the pass, which is >> exported from the .cpp file. > > I'll have to declare a PassInfo* called LoopSimplifyID inside >

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote: > Recently wrote a pass that inserts a preheader for a loop that doesn't > have one. When I tried to run it, I ran into a problem that became > obvious in hindsight - the PHINodes need to be updated in places where > the incoming control-edge has changed. Is there anything else that can > be affected when a block is inserted

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Reid Spencer wrote: > We should probably review this decision at least once a year. If the basis > for not moving to svn is that "cvs is the standard", that situation is likely > to change. Many organizations are now using svn. It is rapidly becoming "the > new standard". At some point it doesn't make sense for us to continue with >

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Sameer Sahasrabuddhe < sameer.sahasrabuddhe at amd.com> wrote: > Ping! We need to close on whether everyone is convinced that symbolic > memory scopes have a significant advantage over opaque numbers. Either of > them will be examined by optimizations using a target-implemented API. I > personally don't think that readability in the LLVM