similar to: [LLVMdev] Instruction->mayReadFromMemory

On Fri, 12 May 2006, Silken Tiger wrote: > To find the first instructions which are not depending on others results. So > far it seems to be working but i am missing instructions like: > %tmp.1 = seteq int %argc, 2 ; <bool> [#uses=1] > There seems only an function like llvm::Instruction::mayWriteToMemory > but nothing like llvm::Instruction::mayReadFromMemory or

Hi Chris and list Thanks for your quick answer :-). Am Freitag, 12. Mai 2006 19:09 schrieb Chris Lattner: > On Fri, 12 May 2006, Silken Tiger wrote: > > To find the first instructions which are not depending on others results. > > So far it seems to be working but i am missing instructions like: > > %tmp.1 = seteq int %argc, 2 ; <bool> [#uses=1] > >

Hi I have written a pass which creates some scheduling information. Its called MParSchedule. This pass works with opt. But when feeding it my experimental backend it seems to loose instructions and fails to work. I am loading this stuff as .so libraries under linux and i am using the amd64 version with a self compiled llvm-gcc. With this call it works: opt

2012/2/3 Patrik Hägglund <patrik.h.hagglund at ericsson.com>: > Hi, > > I've tracked the first problem (mentioned in my previous email, quoted > below) down further, ending up in the handling of alloca in > LoopRotation.cpp (from trunk): > >      // If the instruction's operands are invariant and it doesn't read > or write >      // memory, then it is

Hi > One would expect this, its a facility of the C++ language. The anonymous > namespace is, essentially, the same as declaring everything in it > static. That is, the symbols are not exported and not available for > linking. Yes, it was pretty clear after finding out that this isn't a linking error which i suspected... > > So for all those trying to add an analysis path:

Hi, I have two problems regarding the llvm.stackrestore intrinsic. I'm running on 3.0, but a quick test on trunk also showed the same behavior. First problem: --------------- I have code like: tmp1 = call llvm.stacksave() tmp2 = alloca [do some stuff with tmp2] call llvm.stackrestore(tmp1) [some other stuff] tmp3 = call llvm.stacksave() tmp4 = alloca [do some stuff

Hi, I've tracked the first problem (mentioned in my previous email, quoted below) down further, ending up in the handling of alloca in LoopRotation.cpp (from trunk): // If the instruction's operands are invariant and it doesn't read or write // memory, then it is safe to hoist. Doing this doesn't change the order of // execution in the preheader, but does

Hello, I'm working with a pass that operates at the LLVM IR level. I need to run some statistics on instructions that access memory, and I'm wondering, at the IR level, which instructions aside from Load and Store access memory directly as a result of their operation? I know on an ISA level, this varies from arch to arch, but I'm wondering how LLVM has this set up at the IR level.

The enlosed patch for IndVarSimplify.cpp works even when the pointer increment is deeply nested wrt pointer initialization, but note that it needs to have loop structures preserved, as in the following: int A[3000000], B[20000], C[100], Z; volatile int I, J, K; int main() { int i, j, k, *a, *b, *c; for ( a = &A[0], i = 0; i != 300; i++ ) { I++;

Hi > Right it does. However, does something *else* require MParSchedule? If > so, what? Ok, i am writing on a different backend based on the cbackend. The test usage of this pass looks like this: void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<LoopInfo>(); AU.addRequired<MParSchedule>(); AU.setPreservesAll(); } and then in the

I now understand that IndVarSimplify.cpp is capable of reproducing array references when the pointer initialization from the array address is found inside the immediately enclosing loop, such that in the following code: int A[20000], B[100], Z; int main() { int i, j, *a, *b; for ( a = &A[0], i = 0; i != 200; i++ ) for ( b = &B[0], j = 0; j != 100; j++

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Naftali Schwartz wrote: > I now understand that IndVarSimplify.cpp is capable of reproducing array > references when the pointer initialization from the array address is found > inside the immediately enclosing loop, such that in the following code: Ok. > int A[20000], B[100], Z; > int main() > { > int i, j, *a, *b; > for ( a =

Hi Sanjoy, the first and last patches look good (except that you didn't add any tests for the auto-upgrade functionality). Comments on the other two below. > Attached patches split init.trampoline into adjust.trampoline and > init.trampoline, like in gcc. > > As mentioned in the previous mail, I've not made a documentation > patch, since I'm not sure about what the

I am new to LLVM and couldn't find any llvm-user list, so I am posting my user question here, sorry. I am trying to create a simple "puts" call accepting the static string, with the code below. The last line (CallInst::Create) fails with an assert: "Calling a function with a bad signature!" Because the type of function is void(u8*) and the argument supplied is:

On Apr 29, 2008, at 1:27 AM, Gabor Greif wrote: > Hi all, > > I have reported more than enough about the space savings achieved > and the associated costs, here comes the current patch for review. > > Since this one is substantially smaller than the previous one, I did > not cut it in pieces. The front part is about headers and the rest > the .cpp and other files. Hi

Hi Am Dienstag, 30. Mai 2006 19:21 schrieb Chris Lattner: > On Tue, 30 May 2006, Silken Tiger wrote: > > Everthing now compiles fine, but when running llc with invoking my own > > backend derived from the cbackend i get the following error: > > namespace llvm { > > class MParSchedule : public BasicBlockPass { > > public: > > > >

Hi, >>> I see. Is there a quick answer to the questions why you need inbounds >>> GEPs in that case? Can't you just use non-inbounds GEPs if you know you >>> might not have a valid base ptr and "optimize" it to inbounds once that >>> is proven? >> >> You mean on the Rust side? We emit GEPi for field accesses and array indexing.

Hi guys, We have found a bug of BitcodeReader.cpp in processing an LTO bitcode file. As LLVM doesn't emit use-list for LTO bitcode files, many forward references will happen when BitcodeReader processes the bitcode file, and LLVM uses placeholders for those forward references and resolve them later. When parseConstants() reads in a CST_CODE_CE_SELECT record, e.g. select

Tobias, et al., Attached is the my autovectorization pass. I've fixed a bug that appears when using -bb-vectorize-aligned-only, fixed some 80-col violations, etc., and at least on x86_64, all test cases pass except for a few; and all of these failures look like instruction-selection bugs. For example: MultiSource/Applications/ClamAV - fails to compile shared_sha256.c with an error: error in

Hi, Probably some of the leaks Valgrind reports are spurious, but the numbers seem to be significant enough to demand some attention: ==10132== LEAK SUMMARY: ==10132== definitely lost: 15,624 bytes in 558 blocks. ==10132== indirectly lost: 44,548 bytes in 1,591 blocks. ==10132== possibly lost: 37,576 bytes in 98 blocks. ==10132== still reachable: 1,336,876 bytes in 1,364 blocks.