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

Dear LLVM guys, Hi. I first became to be interested in the compiler work, especially LLVM, since last October, still I'm a novice on here. (My major is not CS, either. :-\) Please forgive my ignorance. 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

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, guys. I just tested -reg2mem pass to see how it changes my bitcode. E.g., for the following simple C code: ------------------------------------------------------------- int foo() { int i,j; int sum = 0; for (i=0; i<10; i++) { sum += i; for (j=0; j<3; j++) sum += 2; } return sum; } ------------------------------------------------------------- I could get the

On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 00:51 -0500, Seung Jae Lee wrote: > Hi, guys. > > I'm interested in using reg2mem pass but not sure about the concept of it. > Can you let me know a reference about it, if any? > Forgive my ignorance. -_-; The reg2mem pass undoes SSA form. That is, it turns SSA registers into alloca instructions with loads and stores. > > Thanks, > Seung J.

Hi, guys. I'm interested in using reg2mem pass but not sure about the concept of it. Can you let me know a reference about it, if any? Forgive my ignorance. -_-; Thanks, Seung J. Lee

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

Hi, Sorry if this question has been asked earlier: Is the -reg2mem the pass to convert SSA form of LLVM IR to non-SSA form (ie, eliminate all phi-functions from LLVM IR) ? I tried it with a small example and it did remove all the phi function, I just wanted to confirm that the pass guarantees to remove all phi functions. Also, assuming I have this pass as a required pass, is it safe to clone

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

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, >

Hello. My name is Seung Jae Lee. I'd like to ask you onething about converting to ARM assembly code. I saved the simplest C code shown in your LLVM webpage as 'hello.c' And I made 'hello.bc' by "$ llvm-gcc hello.c -o hello". In order to make ARM assembly code, I typed "llc -march=arm hello.bc -o hello.arm" But, I met this error. llc: ARMISelDAGToDAG.cpp:73:

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 can even avoid code duplication. See this paper for details: @inproceedings{erosa94taming, author = {Ana M.

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

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

Dear Prof.Adve and Bill, I deeply appreciate your comments and concerns. (Please forgive my late response. I've tried some more cases to make this issue) As Prof.Adve mentioned, I need to explain exactly what my problem is, but I have no good ability that I can explain it in this plain text space. For this reason, I made a .pdf file and linked it as follows:

Hello, LLVMers. I have a quick question for constant folding. When I treated a code twice by changing the data type from 'floating point' to 'integer,' What I found was: optimization is done better for the code having int's. E.g., for this simple code: ------------------------------------------------------------- double foo() { double i,j; double sum = 0; for (i=0;

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

---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:23:39 -0700 >From: Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] constructing 'for' statement from LLVM bitcode >To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > > >On Aug 24, 2007, at 10:07 PM, Seung Jae Lee wrote: > >> Do you have any idea on how I can construct

Thank you for reminding me the notion of the basic block. Of course, I know all the assembly takes the form of BBs and is divided into units of BB. OK. It looks better for me to explain what I wanted to do more clear from the first. Actually, I am working on emitting out an assembly of VM by using LLVM. LLVM assembly looks similar with this VM assembly except BB. The VM assembly does not have the

Hello, I'm trying to apply the reg2mem pass on my bc file, but it somehow adds an instruction before a landingpad instruction and so I get a broken module error: The unwind destination does not have a landingpad instruction! %41 = invoke %class.x* @_ZN10xC2Ev(%class.x* %.reload19) to label %.noexc unwind label %88