similar to: [LLVMdev] not to break 'for' statement into basic blocks

Hello, Seung J. Lee > LLVM optimization and other tools are really fantastic. > However I don't want LLVM breaks my 'for' statement in C code into > basic blocks during compiling. > I'm sure this sounds really strange but there is a reason for me. LLVM is 'low-level'. It doesn't contain any special instruction for loops at all. > Furthermore, this

According to the instruction manual of this target machine, 'goto' should not be used in C code. :-/ Could you tell me a little more about your advice as to using 'reg2mem', if you're fine? Thank you so much, Anton. Best, Seung J. Lee ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 02:23:27 +0400 >From: Anton Korobeynikov <asl at math.spbu.ru> >Subject:

Thank you so much but could you tell me a little bit more in detail about that you suggested? Sorry, I'm just a greenhorn. Thanks, Seung J. Lee ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:26:14 -0500 >From: "David A. Greene" <greened at obbligato.org> >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] not to break 'for' statement into basic blocks >To: llvmdev at

Hello All, I recently installed CentOS 5 and was trying to locate the kernel-smp packages but without success. Have these packages been removed from the distro or renamed? Does anyone know how many processors the default kernel will handle and if it's optimzed for it? Thanks, james

Hi, Is it me or is CentOS 5 faster than FC6? I just switched and it seems that CentOS 5 loads faster and overall feels snappier. Could Red Hat have optimzed EL more than Fedora?. Just curious. I really like what I see with CentOS 5. The devs have done a great job making a profesisonal looking distro. An of course kudos to Red Hat for all the engineering and for making the SRPMS available. Paul

Xi, I just installed VS2005 pro w/ SP1 for Win Vista. Thanks, Seung ---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:36:43 +0800 >From: "Xi Wang" <xi.wang at gmail.com> >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual Studio 2005? >To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > >I'm sorry but did you

''-Wdeclaration-after-statement'' isn''t supported by gcc 3.3 which is what I am currently using. It was introduced into Config.mk in changeset 7973:c7508abc5b6b. I backed out the changes and everything appears to be building okay. > -----Original Message----- > From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com > [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On

On 1/29/19 2:49 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > On 10/8/18 3:47 PM, Colin King wrote: >> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king at canonical.com> >> >> The NOUVEAU_GETPARAM_PCI_DEVICE case is missing a break statement and falls >> through to the following NOUVEAU_GETPARAM_BUS_TYPE case and may end up >> re-assigning the getparam->value to an

Fix the following warning by adding a missing break: drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_abi16.c: In function ‘nouveau_abi16_ioctl_getparam’: drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_abi16.c:202:3: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] switch (device->info.platform) { ^~~~~~ drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_abi16.c:217:2: note: here case NOUVEAU_GETPARAM_FB_SIZE: ^~~~

From: Colin Ian King <colin.king at canonical.com> [ Upstream commit 785cf1eeafa23ec63f426d322401054d13abe2a3 ] The NOUVEAU_GETPARAM_PCI_DEVICE case is missing a break statement and falls through to the following NOUVEAU_GETPARAM_BUS_TYPE case and may end up re-assigning the getparam->value to an undesired value. Fix this by adding in the missing break. Detected by CoverityScan,

On 10/8/18 3:47 PM, Colin King wrote: > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king at canonical.com> > > The NOUVEAU_GETPARAM_PCI_DEVICE case is missing a break statement and falls > through to the following NOUVEAU_GETPARAM_BUS_TYPE case and may end up > re-assigning the getparam->value to an undesired value. Fix this by adding > in the missing break. > > Detected by

I've done quite a bit of looking, but I haven't found an answer that answers this question. Environment: cygwin on Windows rsync 3.0.4 I know that rsync isn't optimzed for speed on local copies - that's clear in my testing. I'm attemting to sync a large volume of files. (In this case, I'm syncing a rdiff-backup set...) An initial sync will be about one fourth as fast a

From: Colin Ian King <colin.king at canonical.com> The NOUVEAU_GETPARAM_PCI_DEVICE case is missing a break statement and falls through to the following NOUVEAU_GETPARAM_BUS_TYPE case and may end up re-assigning the getparam->value to an undesired value. Fix this by adding in the missing break. Detected by CoverityScan, CID#1460507 ("Missing break in switch") Fixes:

Hi guys, I am understanding OpenCL compilation flow on GPU in order to develop OpenCL runtime for a new hardware. I understood that OpenCL compiler is part of a vendor's runtime library which is the heart of OpenCL. Since OpenCL kernel is compiled at runtime, hence at high level its compilation takes place in two steps: i. source code is first converted to intermediate code. ii.

Ok, here are a few suggestions and comments: 1) LLVM has the capabilities to do everything that you are trying to re-implement. 2) Have you looked at the C backend? It recreates loops. It may not create "for" loops but you can hack on it to do that. 3) The way you are converting out of SSA is wrong. You will suffer from lost copies. You should look at using demotePHI(). see

Listening to the meeting on granule pos tonight/today it became clear that the issues everyone is concerned with for the most part don't affect my implementations and the issues i have pretty much don't affect anyone else... and in the cases where they overlap, the reasoning seems to be different. And since everyone else has had a lot more time to consider all these issues and i'm

By browsing on the mailing list I learned that its possible to generate .h263 asterisk friendly files with gstreamer. The script below it's supposed to do just that, however I get error when trying it out locally. gst-launch filesrc location=AstriDevCon_Europe_2006.mov ! qtdemux name=demux ! ffdec_h263 ! videoscale ! video/x-raw-yuv,width=352,height=288 ! ffenc_h263 rtp-payload-size=512 !

Thank you for this reply. If so, is there any way to merge basic blocks into a single one? Thanks, Seung J. Lee ---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:27:38 +0200 >From: Basile STARYNKEVITCH <basile at starynkevitch.net> >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LLVM assembly without basic block >To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > >Seung

On 8/29/07, Domagoj Babic <babic.domagoj at gmail.com> wrote: > Seung, > > On 8/25/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > Ok. Note that LLVM can represent irreducible loops. You can handle > > this through code duplication. > > -Chris > > > If you are willing to invest more effort into a more complicated analysis, > in many cases you

Daniel, On 8/30/07, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > On 8/29/07, Domagoj Babic <babic.domagoj at gmail.com> wrote: > > Seung, > > > > On 8/25/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > > Ok. Note that LLVM can represent irreducible loops. You can handle > > > this through code duplication. > > > -Chris >