similar to: [LLVMdev] problem with loopinfo

I did run the indvars pass, but it seemed that it didn't work. -Wei ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Lattner" <sabre at nondot.org> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:35 PM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] problem with loopinfo > On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Wei Jiang wrote: >> hi, >> The

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Wei Jiang wrote: > hi, > The loopinfo pass failed to recognize the Tripcount of a simple program constructed by me, can you help me to figure out why this happened? Thanks. > The C program and corresponding .ll files are shown below. I used llvm1.7 to develop my own pass, and want to use the loop information. What passes are you running before your pass? trip

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Wei Jiang wrote: > I did run the indvars pass, but it seemed that it didn't work. Then you'll have to trace through and find out why it's failing... -Chris > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Lattner" <sabre at nondot.org> > To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Thursday, June 15,

Hi , I got a few for writing a pass. 1) Is it possible to use input parameters in command line ? For example, we got our own pass, ie. HELLO opt -load ../../Debug/lib/libHELLO.so -HELLO < hello.bc From the above command line, could we use some input parameter and we can read those parameter in Pass routine? 2) For splitting BB, the way what I did is to pick up instruction

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Jeff Cohen wrote: > I noticed that fourinarow is one of the programs in which LLVM is much slower > than GCC, so I decided to take a look and see why that is so. The program > has many loops that look like this: > > #define ROWS 6 > #define COLS 7 > > void init_board(char b[COLS][ROWS+1]) > { > int i,j; > > for

Sorry, I thought I was running selection dag isel but I screwed up when trying out the really big array. You're right, it does clean it up except for the multiplication. So LoopStrengthReduce is not ready for prime time and doesn't actually get used? I might consider whipping it into shape. Does it still have to handle getelementptr in its full generality? Chris Lattner wrote:

Hi, I am investigating a performance degradation between llvm-3.1 and llvm-3.2 (Note: current top-of-tree shows a similar degradation) One issue I see is the following: - 'loop invariant code motion' seems to be depending on the result of the 'reassociate expression' pass: In the samples below I observer the following behavior: Both start with the same expression: %add = add

As far as I can understand of the code, the Reassociate tries to achieve this result by its "ranking" mechanism. If it dose not, it is not hard to achieve this result, just restructure the expression in a way such that the earlier definition of the sub-expression is permute earlier in the resulting expr. e.g. outer-loop1 x= outer-loop2 y =

It's an interesting problem. The best stuff I've seen published is by Cooper, Eckhart, & Kennedy, in PACT '08. Cooper gives a nice intro in one of his lectures: http://www.cs.rice.edu/~keith/512/2012/Lectures/26ReassocII-1up.pdf I can't tell, quickly, what's going on in Reassociate; as usual, the documentation resolutely avoids giving any credit for the ideas. Why is that?

On Apr 25, 2013, at 10:51 AM, Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com> wrote: > It's an interesting problem. > The best stuff I've seen published is by Cooper, Eckhart, & Kennedy, in PACT '08. > Cooper gives a nice intro in one of his lectures: http://www.cs.rice.edu/~keith/512/2012/Lectures/26ReassocII-1up.pdf > I can't tell, quickly, what's going on

Hi, it looks like the IntervalPartition does not work as expected when constructed from another interval partition. Say, I have built an interval partition from function, and the first interval has two basic blocks. When I create second order partition and print all intervals, the second basic block of the function is not seen anywhere. Here's what's going on in IntervalIterator.h:

what's the semantics for setCC if one of the operands is NULL pointer? %ptr=alloc int seteq int*, %pt, NULL what's the result for the second instruction? How about setne, setlt, setgt, setle, and setge? Thanks! Jianzhong

FAIL: /usr/home/jeffc/llvm/obj/../test/Regression/Transforms/InstCombine/2004-11-27-SetCCForCastLargerAndConstant.ll: %Y = cast sbyte %SB to uint ; <uint> [#uses=1] %Y = cast sbyte %SB to int ; <int> [#uses=1] %Y = cast sbyte %SB to int ; <int> [#uses=1] %Y = cast ubyte %SB to uint ; <uint> [#uses=1] %Y = cast ubyte %SB to

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > I've just downloaded the latest release of LLVM, and playing with the > following simple example: > > int main() > { > int r(0); > for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i) > r += i; > ; > return r; > } When I compiled it, I got the following LLVM code: int %main() { entry: call void %__main( )

On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 03:35:46PM +0200, Anders Alexandersson wrote: > %tmpFunction = load int ()** %puts_kernelPTR > ... > %tmpFunction = load int ()** %puts_kernelPTR > > generates > > Redefinition of value named 'tmpFunction' in the 'int () *' type plane! > > Is it not allowed to reuse variables? Is there some way to do it? LLVM uses the Static

Because I've been doing a bit of performance work recently, and because using gprof with the C backend has some limitations, I wrote a little "llvm-prof" utility. Here's a synopsis of how to use it if you're interested: Basic usage: llvm/utils/profile.pl <program.bc> <program arguments> This instruments the bytecode file, executes it with the JIT

Dear guys, I am having problem to split edges correctly. Mostly because the new basic blocks are creating infinite loops. Could someone help me fixing the code below? It is creating assembly like this one below. Block LBB1_9 was inserted to break the critical edge between blocks LBB1_3 and LBB1_8. But it changes the semantics of the original program, because, before, LBB1_8 was falling

Hello! I am having trouble with identifiers: %tmpFunction = load int ()** %puts_kernelPTR ... %tmpFunction = load int ()** %puts_kernelPTR generates Redefinition of value named 'tmpFunction' in the 'int () *' type plane! Is it not allowed to reuse variables? Is there some way to do it? Anders ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anders

hi, I want to know what is exact meaning in the following code. target endian-- %struct..TorRec-- %struct.TorRec-- implementation-- ;<sbyte>[#uses=1/0]-- how to explain them in details? Does anyone give me a guide? thanks yueqiang -------------------------------------------------------------- target endian = little target pointersize = 32 %struct..TorRec = type { int, void ()* }

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > However, it does not remove all the critical edges. I am getting a very > weird dataflow graph (even without the Break Critical edges pass). The > dataflow generated by MachineFunction::dump() for the program below is > given here: > http://compilers.cs.ucla.edu/fernando/projects/soc/images/loop_no_crit2.pdf ... > The