similar to: [LLVMdev] Selection DAG and register classes

On Monday 25 April 2005 14:43, Vladimir Prus wrote: > The 'i' variable is never modified in the program, however, all analyses > except for -globalsmodref-aa report that the > > %tmp.3 = call int %_Z3bari( int %p ) ; <int> [#uses=1] > > instruction can modify 'i'. I'm somewhat surprised, because it looks like > -globalsmodref-aa is the simplest

Hello, I'm playing with alias analysis, using the following program: %i = external global int ; <int*> [#uses=2] implementation ; Functions: int %_Z3bari(int %p) { entry: %tmp.0 = load int* %i ; <int> [#uses=1] %tmp.1 = setgt int %tmp.0, 10 ; <bool> [#uses=1] br bool %tmp.1, label %then, label %UnifiedReturnBlock then:

Chris Lattner wrote: > > Right, but you'd need HTTP/FTP server. Not a problem for *me*, but lots > > of folks are behind firewalls and can't do that. > > Sure. I can't imagine that there is a wonderful solution other than this > though. In particular, how can you do distributed development without it? > The whole idea is to reduce the need for a completely

Reid Spencer wrote: > Volodya, > > I think you may need to update your CFE and rebuild. I compiled the test > using my local build and I didn't get the results you see below. I'm > also very surprised to see this output. The first %tmp.11 should have > been %tmp.1 .. not sure how it got corrupted. In any event, the > attachment is obviously generated by code that runs

On Thursday 22 September 2005 19:12, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > > On 22/09/05, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Couldn't you state the explicit namespaces. So not using "using > >> namespace llvm" and instead prefix all calls with "llvm::"? > > > > The header files in

Okay, let me test with exactly your options and I'll let you know what I get. Reid. On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:53:15 +0400 Vladimir Prus <ghost at cs.msu.su> wrote: > Reid Spencer wrote: >> Volodya, >> >> I think you may need to update your CFE and rebuild. I compiled the test >> using my local build and I didn't get the results you see below. I'm

Okay, I've replicated your results, but I don't think there's an error here, its just not nice output from the disassembler. The first %tmp.ll is of type long. The second one is of type short. I think that's valid for LLVM. That is, the SSA form depends on both the type and name of the virtual register. In any event, llvm-as seems to compile the llvm-dis output just fine. Make

I've another problem. There's one register, gr6, which is used to return high part of return value for functions returning 64-bit values. For such functions, the register should not be saved, naturally. But when function does not return 64-bit value, then the register must be saved. How can I express this in .td file? - Volodya

I've just had some fun, because I wanted to override FunctionPass::addAnalysisUsage, but forgot "const" after the method name -- so instead of overriding I've just created a new unrelated method. After spending some time on this, I've decided to add -Woverloaded-virtual option to compiler to catch such cases. However, it also gives some warnings on LLVM code:

Hello, I'm getting an assertion in register allocator, specifically in LiveIntervalAnalysis.h, method LiveIntervals::getInstructionIndex: unsigned getInstructionIndex(MachineInstr* instr) const { Mi2IndexMap::const_iterator it = mi2iMap_.find(instr); assert(it != mi2iMap_.end() && "Invalid instruction!"); return it->second; } The crash happens

Hi, looking at the fresh CVS state I see: class Register<string n> : RegisterBase<n> { list<RegisterBase> Aliases = []; } while previously the Register class did not require any parameters. The change log is just: * Target.td: Revamp the Register class, and allow the use of the RegisterGroup class to specify aliases directly in register definitions. and I

I wonder in what cases FunctionPass is better that Pass. For example, addPassesToEmitAssembly takes PassManger and addPassesToJITCompile takes FunctionPassManager. Another question is about FunctionPassManager::run(Function&) and FunctionPass(Function&). The former calls the later, which is fine, but the latter looks like this: bool FunctionPass::run(Function &F) { if

Vladimir Prus wrote: > I've another problem. There's one register, gr6, which is used to return > high part of return value for functions returning 64-bit values. For such > functions, the register should not be saved, naturally. > > But when function does not return 64-bit value, then the register must be > saved. How can I express this in .td file? Ok, I've managed

Hi! When I go to http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/doxygen/annotated.html and click on link for, say, "llvm::Module", I've told that the target page does not exist. Same happens for llvm::Value, and in fact everything under "llvm" namespace. Any idea what's wrong? - Volodya

The above-mentioned test contains this: long B53 = - (1LL << 53); strictly speaking, this is not correct code. The C standard says about shift: "if the value of the first operator is ... or greater than ... the width of the promoted left operand, the behaviour is underfined". Thouhts? - Volodya

On Tuesday 10 May 2005 15:12, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > national compiler infrastructure - http://www.cs.virginia.edu/nci/ "Last updated on February 4, 1998." and mailing list archives dont work. Does not seems like a live project. - Volodya

bruno cardoso wrote: > Hello, > > I'm interested on implementing the MIPS backend as a student in a compiler > course on my university, starting in 2 weeks from now!! > I've seen on the mailing list history no one has done it so far > (although a lot said they would)! > am i right? A student of mine is working on a MIPS backend for his term paper; I'm hoping to

Hello, I've just tries make && make install on a fresh CVS tree, and get: llvm[0]: Installing include files /bin/sh: line 1: pax: command not found Two questions. 1. Why install process requires some nonstandard tool? Is it possible to get away without it. 2. autoconf/configure.ac has this: AC_PATH_PROG(PAX, [pax], [pax]) but Makefile.rules uses plain 'pax',

Vladimir Prus wrote: > Vladimir Prus wrote: > > The above-mentioned test contains this: > > > > long B53 = - (1LL << 53); > > > > strictly speaking, this is not correct code. The C standard says about > > shift: "if the value of the first operator is ... or greater than ... the > > width of the promoted left operand, the behaviour is

Dear R helpers,   I have following input files. (Actually they are more than 10 rates but here i am considering only 2 rates to write my problem)   rate1.csv min1        max1            min2          max2          min3           max3 1.05        1.30               1.30          1.65             1.65          1.99   rate2.csv min1        max1            min2          max2          min3