similar to: [LLVMdev] immediate predecessors

hi, how to get the number of immediate predecessors for each basic block (arguements of remarks statement at the beginning of the basic block) thank you aditya ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Hi aditya, There are two ways to cound the number of predecessors for each basic block. You can generate the control flow graph using the CallGraphScc pass with the granularity of basic block and can simply traverse the graph bottom up till the root. The number of nodes encountered would be the number of predecessors. The second way would be to use the special ;preds marker in the llvm IR. Each

Hi! I want to know How to count the number of predecessors for each basic block? Thank You ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

hi I want to use two intrinsic functions which should be placeholders for some instructions which should not be executed by the backend. So these two intrinsics should just keep the data dependencies while i try to separate set of instructions(with more of data flow) to be executed on hardware. One intrinsic which takes care of the data dependencies required for proper execution of the

Hi, I have implemented intrinsics which are placeholders for instructions executed elsewhere (e.g. in HW). So i have two types of intrinsics migrate_begin and migrate_end. Now i would like to make these intrinsics known to the PowerPC backend. Since the hardware initialization can not be implemented by one instruction it has to be expanded to a library call or lowered to something the ppc

Hi, Thank You for the advice and we were able to solve that problem by the following modifications to the Instrinsics.td file. But I now have an "Invalid Intrinsic name" error This error occurs presumably because the created intrinsic is named: llvm.migrate_begin.i32 Intrinsics.gen checks for a string length of 18 (i.e. the length without the .i32). Kindly help me through it.

Hi all, Is there a way to walk through ALL the predecessors of a basic block in a CFG. I tried to iterate over the preds using this method for (pred_iterator PI = pred_begin(BB), E = pred_end(BB); PI != E; ++I) { BasicBlock *PredBB = *PI; } but this only gives the immediate predecessors for a basic block. For example, in this sample control flow graph. entry -> bb1 -> bb2 -> bb4

Hi Pabhat, Have you checked out DepthFirstIterator? (include/llvm/ADT/ DepthFirstIterator.h). It provides an iterator abstraction to perform a forward/reverse DFS traversal of a graph. Many of the LLVM datatypes that represent graphs have a template specialization of the GraphTraits<> class which allows separate algorithms to treat them as graphs, walk them, etc. (Both BasicBlock

Hi, Well, yes i did try your suggestion but i keep on running into a compilation problem. The error is: llvm[0]: Compiling Hello.cpp for Release build (PIC) /home/saraswat/llvm/llvm-2.1/include/llvm/ADT/GraphTraits.h: In instantiation of `llvm::GraphTraits<llvm::ilist_iterator<llvm::BasicBlock> >': Hello.cpp:59: instantiated from here

On Feb 19, 2008, at 1:11 AM, aditya vishnubhotla wrote: > Hi, > I tried creating variable argument intrinsics which > are to be placeholders for some instructions which > should not be executed by the backend. > > Kindly help me with the errors in my "migrate_begin" > intrinsic creation > > //Additions made to Intrinsics.td file: > > def

Hi All, I have got one domination error after running LoopVectorizer with VPlanNatviePath. Let's see simple IR snippet after loop vectorization with VPlanNatviePath. vector.body: ... br label %for.body10.preheader67 for.body10.preheader67: ; preds = %for.cond.cleanup972, %vector.body %vec.phi = phi <4 x i64> [ zeroinitializer, %for.cond.cleanup972 ], [ %8,

Hi Guys, Thanks for Unicorn, it makes my world rock. You guy have done a wonderful job and also huge thanks to the predecessors too. The default timeout on my Rails app is 30 seconds. The app works fine most of the time but there are some parts of the app which are slow and occasionally totter over the 30 sec response time and timeout. Is there a clean way for me to hook into timeouts and notify

Hi, I've been writing an optimization pass (described on the ML previously). Sometimes this pass removes some case entries from switch instructions, which cause an abort because removeCase() doesn't fix the PHINodes predecessors when needed. e.g.: define i32 @foo() nounwind { ifthen: %call = call i32 @bar() switch i32 %call, label %myphi [ i32 0, label %ifelse i32 1, label

Hello, LLVM's intrinsic overloading mechanism does not currently support overloading on pointer types. Patches to implement this would be welcome. Dan On May 7, 2008, at 9:25 AM, aditya vishnubhotla wrote: > Hi, > I tried creating intrinsics which are to be > placeholders for a set of instructions (actually a section of a > basic block) to be executed elsewhere(for e.g. in

Hi, I plan to implement an algorithm which requires BasicBlocks to have at most two predecessors. simplifycfg pass is not a choice since it doesn't do what I want, going by its description. Could someone point me to an existing pass which does this job? Thanks, -- Rekha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi , Currently GobalIsel like FastIsel designed to use fallback to DAGIsel in case of failure. You can use -global-isel-abort=2 option. llc -global-isel -pass-remarks-missed="gisel-*" -global-isel-abort=2 simple_foo.ll Regards, Igor From: S. Bharadwaj Yadavalli [mailto:bharadwajy at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 03:36 To: Aditya Nandakumar <proaditya at

Hello Félix- Consider the following snippet of IR: define i32 @foo(i32 %n) nounwind { entry: br label %loop loop: %loop.n = phi i32 [0, %entry], [%tmp, %loop] call void @bar() nounwind %tmp = sub nsw i32 %loop.n, 1 %cmp = icmp eq i32 %tmp, 0 br i1 %cmp, label %exit, label %loop exit: ret i32 0 } declare void @bar() nounwind Try to merge the blocks "entry" and "loop"

The title says it all. verifyFunction checks it (Verifier.cpp, line 728). Why can't BasicBlocks that serve as a function's entry point also have predecessors? What keeps a function from looping back to its beginning? Félix -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

It's past 3 AM here, so maybe I really shouldn't be answering in this state of awakeness. However, what I understand from your example is that loops with counters must be entered from another block in order to use the phi instruction correctly, not that it should be invalid to branch to the entry block. It seems to me that it makes sense to go back to the entry point if looping is not

Hi Cristianno, > I'm trying to get a list of predecessors of a BasicBlock. I'm using a code > similar to that on here > <http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#iterate_preds>, but it appears to > be more nodes been iterating that it should. Now, when I print out the llvm IR, > I get something like: > […] > while.body: ; preds = %7, %while.cond > […] >