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.