similar to: [LLVMdev] BreakCriticalMachineEdge.h

Fernando, The code there should be more or less functional, though it's not currently used by anything. Eventually it should probably be moved to a method on MachineBasicBlock. The API breakage you're seeing is because some methods moved around. Feel free to fix it. :-) --Owen On Jan 26, 2008, at 6:31 PM, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > > Hi LLVMers, > >

I want to be able to do two things with LLVM (both just before code emission): 1. Insert a MachineBasicBlock just before a MachineBasicBlock. There is a function called AddPredecessor(). However, the comment says that it does not update the actual CFG. I want to redirect all CFG edges that are incoming to this MachineBasicBlock to the new one I create, and add just one outgoing edge (no branch)

Hi all, I have a pass to break critical edges of Machine Basic Blocks, but I just discovered a bug (when compiling code for x86). The problem is 'jumpl *%reg'. I don't know how to update the jump table for this type of instruction. The code that I had (see below) does not update the jump table, and the actual branch keeps jumping to the old basic block, instead of the new.

Sorry about the tardiness of my reply. My mail client has playing tricks with me. :-) I am assuming the issue has nothing to do the branch to jumptable instructions but rather the MachineJumpTableInfo associated with every MachineFunction? If so, please take a look at BranchFoldiing.cpp for an example. Evan On Aug 10, 2007, at 12:30 PM, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > >

Thanks, Evan. Actually I've solved my problem with some hints from Dale and Anton. At least I think I've solved it. I had to add one method to TargetInstrInfo to tell me when an instruction is an indirect jump - TargetInstrInfo::tii.isIndirectJump(opcode). When that is the case, I update the jump table using: // Change jumps to go to the new basic block:

Hi, This pass is similar to the one in BreakCriticalEdges.cpp, but it works for MachineFunction's, instead of Functions. The existence of critical edges complicates many optimizations. When doing register allocation, you don't necessarily have to remove critical edges (you can use conventional SSA-form, for instance. See "Translating Out of Static Single Assignment Form. SAS

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

> If you don't want critical edges in the machine code CFG, you're going to > have to write a machine code CFG critical edge splitting pass: LLVM > doesn't currently have one. > > -Chris Hey guys, I've coded a pass to break the critical edges of the machine control flow graph. The program works fine, but I am sure it is not the right way of implementing it.

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

On Aug 17, 2007, at 3:08 PM, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > > Thanks, Evan. > > Actually I've solved my problem with some hints from Dale and > Anton. Ok, cool. I didn't see their replies. Like I said, my email client is acting funny. > At least I think I've solved it. I had to add one method to > TargetInstrInfo to tell me when an instruction

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > I am having some problems when compiling huge programs (like gcc). > I have a machine pass to destroy critical edges, and I have to add > new basic blocks, but sometimes the program is too big, and the new > basic block gets out of addressing range. What is the proper way to > address this problem? I am producing code

Dear guys, I am having some problems when compiling huge programs (like gcc). I have a machine pass to destroy critical edges, and I have to add new basic blocks, but sometimes the program is too big, and the new basic block gets out of addressing range. What is the proper way to address this problem? I am producing code for the PowerPC, and I had to implement the insert go-to method. I am

tailcall optimization stop working in jit (lli) in revision 45527. i guess this is because the jit is tailjmping to the wrong function address. the following change would reenable tailcallopt in jit. But i am pretty sure that this is not the correct fix (since i don't really understand what is going on :). maybe evan can comment on this? regards arnold Index:

I have a MachineOperand that could be something other than a Reg: mem, global address, imm, etc... I want to replace a reg MachineOperand with this non-reg MachineOperand. I've tried a few different things, but it doesn't seem like there is some simple functionality to do this? "RemoveOperand" and "addOperand" does not work. There doesn't seem to be a valid

Dear Friends, I have data set with around 220,000 rows and 17 columns. One of the columns is an id variable which is grouped from 1000 through 9000. I need to perform the following operations. 1) Remove all the observations with id's between 6000 and 6999 I tried using this method. remdat1 <- subset(data, ID<6000) remdat2 <- subset(data, ID>=7000) donedat <- rbind(remdat1,

The problem is that you are inserting block 9 in the wrong spot. mf.getLastBlock() returns the block with the greatest number which may have nothing to do with the ordering. Why not use the end iterator (mf.end) to insert? -Tanya On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > > Dear guys, > > I am having problem to split edges correctly. Mostly because the new

This is a pretty nice warning. Should we enable it for LLVM's build when the host compiler supports it? Benjamin Kramer via llvm-commits <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> writes: > Author: d0k > Date: Mon Feb 22 07:11:58 2016 > New Revision: 261524 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=261524&view=rev > Log: > Fix some abuse of auto flagged by

Tom, My current example is a global address; however, it could be any operand in theory. The arch allows for direct mem op support for ex instructions, so it could be any type of address or any type of imm or any type of register. For example, we are using intrinsics for some instructions since LLVM does not support them. Table gen does not allow for matching to direct mem op because the

The docs for the above-mentioned function say: This method may modify or replace the specified instruction, as long as it keeps the iterator pointing the the finished product. What does it mean to "keep an interator". Was "invalidates the iterator" intended, so something else. Another question, is how do I really replace the instruction. The operator= is private

Hey Ryan, You end with a large constant immediate offset value because the register operand stores the register id in a union together with the offset that's used by the global address operand. Just add 'setOffset(0)' to your change method and that should solve your problem. 2015-06-16 9:15 GMT-07:00 Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com>: > So I have this for