similar to: [LLVMdev] Problem while using mem2reg Optimization

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 10:07 AM, kapil anand <kapilanand2 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I am using various LLVM optimization passes and I noticed a strange > behaviour in Mem2Reg Optimization. These pass is used for SSA construction > and basically removed alloca of the corresponding pointers are just used in > load/stores. > So, is there any restriction that all the

I'm attempting to modify a parser generator to emit LLVM code instead of C. So far the experience has been trivial, but I am now running into an error regarding labels that I can't seem to solve. Situation 1: A label is used immediately after a void function call (l6 in this case): <snip> %tmp26 = load i32* @yybegin, align 4 %tmp27 = load i32* @yyend, align 4 call void

--- silk/NSQ.c | 18 ++------------- silk/NSQ.h | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++ silk/arm/NSQ_neon.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ silk/arm/NSQ_neon.h | 10 ++++++++ 4 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/silk/NSQ.c b/silk/NSQ.c index d8513dc..ec81f3b 100644 --- a/silk/NSQ.c +++ b/silk/NSQ.c @@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ void

--- silk/NSQ.c | 18 ++------------- silk/NSQ.h | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++ silk/arm/NSQ_neon.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ silk/arm/NSQ_neon.h | 10 ++++++++ 4 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/silk/NSQ.c b/silk/NSQ.c index d8513dc..ec81f3b 100644 --- a/silk/NSQ.c +++ b/silk/NSQ.c @@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ void

On 01/29/2013 07:58 PM, Nadav Rotem wrote: > > On Jan 29, 2013, at 12:51 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es > <mailto:tobias at grosser.es>> wrote: > >> >> # ignore assumed dependences. >> for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { >> tmp1 = A[3i+1]; >> tmp2 = A[3i+2]; >> tmp3 = tmp1 + tmp2; >> A[3i] = tmp3; >> } >>

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10182 Summary: Deleted file not shown in logfile (--log-file) unless out-format option is specified Product: rsync Version: 3.1.0 Platform: x64 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: core AssignedTo:

On Jan 29, 2013, at 12:51 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > > # ignore assumed dependences. > for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { > tmp1 = A[3i+1]; > tmp2 = A[3i+2]; > tmp3 = tmp1 + tmp2; > A[3i] = tmp3; > } > > Now I apply for whatever reason a partial reg2mem transformation. > > float tmp3[1]; > > # ignore assumed

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: >> Can you explain why you chose the approach of using a new pass? >> I pictured removing LegalizeDAG's type legalization code would >> mostly consist of finding all the places that use TLI.getTypeAction

So, that means that &&(Label) operator, which is defined in C++, is also not supported currently in LLVM. I thought I could obtain address of basic block indirectly through this small hack but it does not seem to work. Actually, I tried to make folloing dummy C++ code which uses this operator: *int main(int argc,char** argv) { int x; int y; L1:

Hi guys, I am trying to use the indvars pass, but i don't see any changes in the IL representation. For this simple function void init_array(int k) { int A[20]; for (int i=2; i<10; i++) A[i] = 0; } i run *clang test-simple.c -S -emit-llvm -o test.il* and i obtain the following il representation define void @init_array(i32 %k) nounwind { entry: %k.addr = alloca i32,

Hello! I am merging two datasets and I have encountered a problem with sort. Can someone please point me to my error. Here is the example. ## I have dataframes, first one with factor and second one with factor ## and integer > tmp1 <- data.frame(col1 = factor(c("A", "A", "C", "C", "0", "0"))) > tmp2 <- data.frame(col1 =

Dear all, The function f() below is a function of m1 and m2, both of which are matrices with 3 rows. The function works sequentially one row after another. So altogether there are three stages. I am trying to update the coding to write a generic function that will work for arbitrary k stages. I am hoping to get some suggestion and help. Thanks so much! Hanna ##x, y are two

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Sorin Baltateanu <baltateanu.sorin at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi guys, > > I am trying to use the indvars pass, but i don't see any changes in the IL > representation. > > For this simple function > > void init_array(int k) > { >     int A[20]; >     for (int i=2; i<10; i++) >         A[i] = 0; > } > > i run

Le 31/05/2017 ? 17:30, Serguei Sokol a ?crit : > > More thorough reading revealed that I have overlooked this phrase in the > line's doc: "left and right /thirds/ of the data" (emphasis is mine). Oops. I have read the first ref returned by google and it happened to be tibco's doc, not the R's one. The layout is very similar hence my mistake. The latter does not

Hi R-users, I'm quite new to R and trying to learn the basics. I have a following problem concerning the convertion of array object into data frame. I have made following data sets tmp1 <- rnorm(100) tmp2 <- gl(10,2,length=100) tmp3 <- as.data.frame(cbind(tmp1,tmp2)) tmp3.sum <- tapply(tmp3$tmp1,tmp3$tmp2,sum) tmp3.sum <- as.data.frame(tapply(tmp1,tmp2,sum)) and I want the

Hello everybody, unfortunately, I have some problems using the LLVM assembler parser ... - use llvm-gcc ( llvm-gcc -O0 -S --emit-llvm -o system2.ll system2.c) to translate the following small example into LLVM assembly language: int common_func1() { return 5; } int common_func2(int a) { return a + 5; } void Handler1() { int e = 4; int f = common_func1(); int ret = common_func2(e);

Hello, we've run a coverity scan on the openssh sources and it found several issues. Although the scan was run on patched rhel sources, some results are applicable to vanilla sources too. * servconf.c:1458:dead_error_line ? Execution cannot reach this statement "*intptr = *intptr + 1;" --- a/servconf.c +++ b/servconf.c @@ -1451,12 +1451,8 @@

On Jul 3, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Richard Osborne wrote: >> >> This seems to break the convention. It should be the responsibility >> of the caller to further legalize the results. >> >> Evan > That makes sense. In that case I believe > SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeSetCCOperands > should be legalizing the result. The description of this function > says

Evan Cheng wrote: > On Jul 3, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Richard Osborne wrote: > >>> This seems to break the convention. It should be the responsibility >>> of the caller to further legalize the results. >>> >>> Evan >>> >> That makes sense. In that case I believe >> SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeSetCCOperands >> should be

# Your mailer is set to "none" (default on Windows), # hence we cannot send the bug report directly from R. # Please copy the bug report (after finishing it) to # your favorite email program and send it to # # r-bugs@r-project.org # ###################################################### Is this intended behavior for the read.fwf(na.strings="-999")? I anticipated that