similar to: [LLVMdev] constructing 'for' statement from LLVM bitcode

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

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, >

Hi Henrique, I have tried using -mergereturn and inserting a free into the predecessors of dominance frontier of malloc block and it caused double free. It is possible for multiple free's to be inserted on the path from malloc to an exit. For example, in the following CFG: BB10 (malloc) / \ BB11 BB12 ... / \ / \

Try breaking the critical edges (-break-crit-edges). This way, a new block will be created between BB13 and BB11 (call this BB11.break) and BB15 and BB12 (call this BB12.break). The predecessors of the dominance frontier will, thus, be BB11.break, BB12.break, and BB14. When we enter through a block with a call to malloc(), we will end up in one of the blocks in the dominance frontier (kind of).

Hi Quentin, I have rerun the test case on a recent commit, so the numbers have changed. There are also now a few more basic blocks very small basic blocks in the function, and therefore there are some slight differences. I tried to go back to earlier commits, without success for some reason... This is however very similar, except that there becomes two COPYs back to sibling value after the loop.

> > It seems that placing the calls to free at the predecessors of dominance > frontier is inadequate. It is possible that there are exit blocks that are > dominated by BB12 (calls to malloc). I guess we can also insert calls to > free at these exit blocks too. That crossed my mind a few minutes later. : ) If you're interested, PRE.cpp existed last at r25315. It calculates the

Hi Henrique, Thanks for the quick reply! On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Henrique Santos < henrique.nazare.santos at gmail.com> wrote: > PRE normally uses a latest placement algorithm to do something of the sort. > I don't know about GVN/PRE, but older version of PRE might have it. > Just placing the calls to free at the predecessors (dominated by BB12) of > the dominance

Hi Jonas, Thanks for your patience. After spending some time looking at the additional output you gave me, I agree that your fix is the right one. I was worried that this problem may arise because we were spilling not real user, but in fact what I thought was the problem is an optimization we could do :). See my comments inlined for a few nitpicks before you commit. Thanks again, -Quentin On

I have what appears to be a bug in LLVM... I'm deeply hesitant to label it a bug, given my lack of experience with LLVM, but the behaviour of this fragment strongly suggests a bug. In particular, compiling and running this fragment using a fresh SVN build yields this stderr: uccello:/tmp clements$ lli a.out.bc 0 lli 0x005e72b6 char const* std::find<char const*,

Hi, I've stumbled upon a case where I think gvn does a bad (wrong) optimization. It's a bit messy to debug though so I'm not sure if I should just write a PR about it a let someone who knows the code look at it instead. Anyway, for the bug to trigger I need to run the following passes in the same opt invocation: -sroa -instcombine -simplifycfg -instcombine -gvn The problem

Hi, It looks like PDT.getRootNode() returns NULL for: define fastcc void @c974001__lengthy_calculation. 1736(%struct.FRAME.c974001* nocapture %CHAIN.185) noreturn { entry: br label %bb bb: br label %bb } Isn't it a bug in PostDominatorTree? Please note that this crashes: opt -postdomtree -debug dom_crash.bc I think this should be reported as a bug, -Jakub On Sep 3, 2009, at

Hi, I would like some help regarding the LSR pass. It seems that it likes to duplicate address calculations as in the case above, which is highly undesirable on my target. I wonder if there is any way to tell LSR to not duplicate the code in cases like this? Or could I perhaps run CSE after LSR again? What is the logic behind this transformation? It seems that a LSR pass should not insert a

Hi all, I have been writing a pass to heapify some alloca's (it is pessimistization, not optimization). For example, in the following control flow graph, there is a call to malloc inserted in block BB12. In order to avoid memory leak, free's are needed. The free cannot be inserted in BB23 because BB23 is not dominated by BB12. There are two ways to go I can think of here. One way is to

Hi Jakub, interesting patch. I ran it over the Ada testsuite and this picked up some problems even without enabling dse-ssu. For example, "opt -inline -dse -domtree" crashes on the attached testcase. Ciao, Duncan. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: dom_crash.ll URL:

Hello, This patch adds non-local DSE optimization. It uses Static Single Use representation. This is my first "big" patch, please be tolerant :-) Please note that optimization is disabled by default. -Jakub -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dse_ssu.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 17352 bytes Desc: not available URL:

Jakub Staszak wrote: > Hi, > > It looks like PDT.getRootNode() returns NULL for: > > define fastcc void @c974001__lengthy_calculation. > 1736(%struct.FRAME.c974001* nocapture %CHAIN.185) noreturn { > entry: > br label %bb > > bb: > br label %bb > } > > > Isn't it a bug in PostDominatorTree? > > Please note that this crashes: >

PRE normally uses a latest placement algorithm to do something of the sort. I don't know about GVN/PRE, but older version of PRE might have it. Just placing the calls to free at the predecessors (dominated by BB12) of the dominance frontier of BB12 seems to work, however. Is there anything wrong with this? H. On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Bin Tzeng <bintzeng at gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks! I will try that and see whether it works. On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Henrique Santos < henrique.nazare.santos at gmail.com> wrote: > It seems that placing the calls to free at the predecessors of dominance >> frontier is inadequate. It is possible that there are exit blocks that are >> dominated by BB12 (calls to malloc). I guess we can also insert calls to

Hello, Bug is already fixed by Chris (see: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=4915) . I added getRootNode() == NULL condition to my patch. It's not a great solution, but it is enough for now I think. New patch attached. -Jakub -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dse_ssu-2.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 17762 bytes Desc: not

Bill, Just in case this is relevant for you: If you're working with C++ code, or otherwise have any functions that might throw exceptions, you might also need to catch those exceptions in order to free the allocated memory. This will involve looking for calls to functions that mayThrow(), changing their calls to invokes, and freeing the memory before resuming the unwinding. -Hal -----