similar to: [LLVMdev] Simplifying boolean expressions

On Wed, 4 May 2005, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > %tmp.aux = cast bool %tmp.24 to int > %tmp.x = xor int %tmp.aux, 1 ; negates tmp.24 > %tmp.xx = cast int %tmp.x to bool > %tmp.y = or bool %tmp.xx, %tmp.24 ; will be always true > br bool %tmp.y, label %next6, label %next7 > > Is there an optimization in LLVM that

On Wednesday 04 May 2005 18:34, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 4 May 2005, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > %tmp.aux = cast bool %tmp.24 to int > > %tmp.x = xor int %tmp.aux, 1 ; negates tmp.24 > > %tmp.xx = cast int %tmp.x to bool > > %tmp.y = or bool %tmp.xx, %tmp.24 ; will be always true > > br bool %tmp.y,

This is an interesting problem. The GC code is being converted into 'invokes' instead of calls: define i32 @main() gc "shadow-stack" { entry: %gc_frame = alloca %gc_stackentry.main %gc_currhead = load %gc_stackentry** @llvm_gc_root_chain %gc_frame.map = getelementptr %gc_stackentry.main* %gc_frame, i32 0, i32 0, i32 1 store %gc_map* getelementptr inbounds (%gc_map.0*

Hi, Here's another case, different in high-level, but similar in low-level. When Fortran allocatable array is defined in module, its actual dimensions are kept in internal structure. Loads originated from reading these dimensions confuse Polly on any use of this array. Attachments: 1) Sample Fortran source code (to be compiled with and without -DMODULE to see failing and working version,

We have created an next3 and patched e2fsprogs OpenNode / CentOS 5 / RHEL 5 rpms - installable from opennode-test yum repo. Provided next3 kernel module is currently built against RHEL5 OpenVZ kernel used in OpenNode - so installing this next3 rpm package on your CentOS 5 or RHEL 5 host will install also OpenVZ patched RHEL5 kernel and newer e2fsprogs package. Installation and usage

We have created an next3 and patched e2fsprogs OpenNode / CentOS 5 / RHEL 5 rpms - installable from opennode-test yum repo. Provided next3 kernel module is currently built against RHEL5 OpenVZ kernel used in OpenNode - so installing this next3 rpm package on your CentOS 5 or RHEL 5 host will install also OpenVZ patched RHEL5 kernel and newer e2fsprogs package. Installation and usage

Hi, I have the following IR code </snippet> %prev = getelementptr inbounds %struct.myStruct* %node, i32 0, i32 1 %1 = load %struct.myStruct** %prev, align 4, !tbaa !0 %next1 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.myStruct* %1, i32 0, i32 0 store %struct.myStruct* %0, %struct.myStruct** %next1, align 4, !tbaa !0 %2 = load %struct.myStruct** %prev, align 4, !tbaa ! </snippet> myStruct is

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Pranav Bhandarkar <pranavb at codeaurora.org>wrote: > Hi, > > I have the following IR code > > </snippet> > %prev = getelementptr inbounds %struct.myStruct* %node, i32 0, i32 1 > %1 = load %struct.myStruct** %prev, align 4, !tbaa !0 > %next1 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.myStruct* %1, i32 0, i32 0 > store %struct.myStruct*

Hello all, My app is using LLVM JIT as a runtime engine for image analysis (similar to opencl). I'm placing values into a struct to pass byref to a series of functions. After running the createStandardModulePasses(...) set of optimizations, the function calls are all inlined but the struct store/load pairs haven't been optimized away. I've attached the code below. What I'd like to

Hello all, My app is using LLVM JIT as a runtime engine for image analysis (similar to opencl). I'm placing values into a struct to pass byref to a series of functions. After running the createStandardModulePasses(...) set of optimizations, the function calls are all inlined but the struct store/load pairs haven't been optimized away. I've attached the code below. What I'd like to

Hi, I tried creating intrinsics which are to be placeholders for a set of instructions which should not be executed by the backend. I get the following verifier error. The "indvar.next4" instruction being mentioned in the step wise debug is not present in the LLVM IR (i.e IR before application of my transformation Pass). As seen below the operands of this instructions causing

Wow... Thank you so much for this. I'll try this one. Thanks again, Wojciech. SJL ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 15:07:34 +0200 >From: Wojciech Matyjewicz <wmatyjewicz at fastmail.fm> >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] constructing 'for' statement from LLVM bitcode >To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > >Hi, >

Hi Bill, Thanks for working on this. Is there a reference for the function attribute uwtable, or is it to be defined as part of this effort? Thanks in advance Garrison On Jul 23, 2011, at 1:29, Bill Wendling wrote: > What? Yet another EH proposal?! This one is different from the others in that > I'm planning to start implementing this shortly. But I want your feedback! I've

The linker is going off in the weeds trying to parse the dwarf unwind info. The CIE has: Leh_frame_common_begin0: .long 0 ## CIE Identifier Tag .byte 1 ## DW_CIE_VERSION .asciz "zLR" ## CIE Augmentation .byte 1 ## CIE Code Alignment Factor .byte 120 ## CIE Data Alignment

Dear Wojciech Matyjewicz: Thank you for your advice. I could follow what you had suggested upto opt -analyze -loops bsloop-opt.bc Therefore, I could get the prints you had showed me as follows: -------------------------------------------------------- Printing analysis 'Natural Loop Construction' for function 'bsloop': Loop Containing: %bb16, %bb13, %bb8, %bb1 Loop

Hi, If I type define i32 @main() gc "shadow-stack" { entry: %0 = alloca i8* %1 = call i8* @malloc(i64 1) store i8* %1, i8** %0 call void @llvm.gcroot(i8** %0, i8* null) ret i32 0 } declare i8* @malloc(i64) declare void @llvm.gcroot(i8**, i8*) nounwind in test.ll and then do > llc test.ll > gcc test.s I get the error ld: in

Dear developers, I found a problem that 'smbclient' loses some files when it's creating a tar ball. A patch attached this message is for samba 2.2.8a and fixes this problem. Would you please check it? I think there is a protocol mismatch with Windows 2000 at cli_list_new() in libsmb/clilist.c (FIND FIRST2/FIND NEXT2). Samba assumes that 'Last Name Offset' response field is

> 1. A problem between smbclient and a share with windows 3.11 (victor3.lopes@voila.fr) > 2. RE: A problem between smbclient and a share with windows 3.11 (Allen, Michael B (RSCH)) > > --__--__-- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:03:34 +0100 > Subject: A problem between smbclient and a share with windows 3.11 > From: "victor3.lopes@voila.fr"

Hi Andrew, The issue below refers to LSR, so I'll appreciate your feedback. It also refers to instruction combining and might impact backends other than X86, so if you know of others that might be interested you are more than welcome to add them. Thanks, Anat _____________________________________________ From: Shemer, Anat Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 15:07 To: 'llvmdev at

What? Yet another EH proposal?! This one is different from the others in that I'm planning to start implementing this shortly. But I want your feedback! I've all ready gotten a lot of feedback from Chris, John, Jim, Eric, and many others. Now is your turn! Please read this proposal and send me your comments, suggestions, and concerns. -bw