similar to: [LLVMdev] Question to Chris

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 200 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Question to Chris"

2008 Feb 04
0
[LLVMdev] Question to Chris
Thank you for this comment, Mike. So... your suggestion is to make a valid transform for each loop like: >for (;C;) { > S >} > >is to transform: > >top: >if (!C) goto end; > S >goto top; >end: For now, my code is incomplete so not ready to present for audit yet but I hope it asap. In fact, I couldn't understand what you said: >The cost of the .pdf
2007 Sep 05
2
[LLVMdev] reg2mem pass
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
2006 May 22
3
writing 100 files
Hi All, I need to write as text files 1000 ish variation of the same data frame, once I permute a row. I would like to use the function write.table() to write the files, and use a loop to do it: for (i in 1:1000){ bb8[2,] = sample(bb8[2,]) write.table(bb8, quote = F, sep = '\t', row.names = F, col.names = F, file = 'whatever?????.txt') } so all the files are called
2008 Feb 05
1
[LLVMdev] signed integer types still in LLVM 2.1
Hello. I updated my LLVM with version 2.1 from 1.9. But I am curious why I still have signed integer type. I still get LLVM IR as follows: ...... ...... bb8.outer: ; preds = %bb10, %entry %i.0.0.ph = phi uint [ 0, %entry ], [ %indvar.next26, %bb10 ] ; <uint> [#uses=2] %sum.0.pn.ph = phi uint [ 0, %entry ], [ %sum.1, %bb10 ] ; <uint> [#uses=1] br label %bb8 bb3: ; preds = %bb8
2007 Aug 25
2
[LLVMdev] constructing 'for' statement from LLVM bitcode
Hello, guys. I am trying to construct higher-level 'for' from the low-level LLVM bitcode(ver 1.9). It's partly successful thanks to David A. Greene's advice suggested to use Control Dependence Graph(CDG). I could find which BB contributes to form which loop with CDG. For example, for this simple function: ----------------------------------------------------------- void bsloop(int
2011 Nov 21
1
[LLVMdev] Fwd: Order of Basic Blocks
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> Date: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Order of Basic Blocks To: Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at googlemail.com> This worked, though the RPO_iterator apparently wasn't what I was looking for anyways, it seems it doesn't rreally go top->down. I have a simple example code,
2008 Feb 05
1
[LLVMdev] signed integer types still in LLVM 2.1
I didn't 'cause my llvm-gcc just seems to be 4.0: ]$ llvm-gcc -v Using built-in specs. Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../llvm-gcc4-1.9.source/configure --prefix=/mounts/zion/disks/0/localhome/tbrethou/llvm-gcc4/obj/../install --enable-llvm=/localhome/tbrethou/llvm --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-threads Thread model: single gcc version 4.0.1 LLVM (Apple Computer, Inc. build
2008 Aug 13
1
[LLVMdev] Alloca Outside of Entry Block
This is the right answer for C's alloca. The question probably referred to LLVM IR's alloca, however. On Aug 13, 2008, at 11:07 AMPDT, Mike Stump wrote: > On Aug 13, 2008, at 10:49 AM, John Criswell wrote: >> Is it legal to have an alloca in a basic block other than a >> function's entry block? > > How else could you generate code for: > > #include
2012 Nov 26
2
[LLVMdev] LSR pass
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
2009 Sep 03
2
[LLVMdev] Non-local DSE optimization
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
2009 Jun 11
0
[LLVMdev] patch for llc/ARM: added mechanism to move switch tables from .text -> .data; also cleanup and documentation
On Jun 8, 2009, at 2:42 PM, robert muth wrote: > On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> > wrote: >> >> On Jun 7, 2009, at 6:59 AM, robert muth wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Evan Cheng<evan.cheng at apple.com> >>> wrote: >>>> +cl::opt<std::string>
2009 Jun 08
2
[LLVMdev] patch for llc/ARM: added mechanism to move switch tables from .text -> .data; also cleanup and documentation
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 7, 2009, at 6:59 AM, robert muth wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Evan Cheng<evan.cheng at apple.com> >> wrote: >>> +cl::opt<std::string> FlagJumpTableSection("jumptable-section", >>> +                                          
2009 Sep 03
0
[LLVMdev] Non-local DSE optimization
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:
2009 Aug 31
2
[LLVMdev] Non-local DSE optimization
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:
2002 Sep 10
2
Traceroute
How do I allow traceroute to reach my server? Pings work fine but traceroute stops at the last hop before my server. If I shut off the firewall it reaches it fine. PING danicar.net (24.222.246.120): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 24.222.246.120: icmp_seq=0 ttl=237 time=104.0 ms 64 bytes from 24.222.246.120: icmp_seq=1 ttl=237 time=74.9 ms 64 bytes from 24.222.246.120: icmp_seq=2 ttl=237 time=90.6
2009 Sep 06
0
[LLVMdev] Non-local DSE optimization
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: >
2009 Sep 08
2
[LLVMdev] Non-local DSE optimization
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
2011 Jul 07
1
[LLVMdev] code generation removes duplicated instructions
Ok. Let me describe the problem again in some detail. The following is the original bitcode from a real testcase: bb7: %46 = load i32* %j, align 4 %47 = add nsw i32 %46, 1 store i32 %47, i32* %j, align 4 br label %bb8 To protect the operand of the store I duplicate the input chain of operands and insert a comparison to check whether the operand of the stores are correct. As a result of
2010 Aug 05
3
[LLVMdev] a problem when using postDominatorTree
On 08/05/2010 06:46 AM, Wenbin Zhang wrote: > Hi all, > I'm using postDominatorTree to do some program analysis. My code works > well for small tests, but when I run it on real applications, the > following error occurs: > /Inorder PostDominator Tree: DFSNumbers invalid: 0 slow queries. > [1] <<exit node>> {0,21} > [2] %bb1 {1,2} > [2] %bb {3,4} > [2]
2014 Dec 05
2
[LLVMdev] InlineSpiller.cpp bug?
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.