similar to: [LLVMdev] Little bug in LoopInfo after Rotate?

---------- 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,

> On Sep 21, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > > // For all predecessors of this MBB, find the set of VarLocs that > // can be joined. > for (auto p : MBB.predecessors()) { > auto OL = OutLocs.find(p); > // Join is null in case of empty OutLocs from any of the pred. > if (OL == OutLocs.end()) >

Dear all, I'm working on an exploratory backend on llvm. In the instruction set I'm using I have an instruction (called DECJNZ) that decrements a register and, if the decremented value is not zero, jumps (with a relative jump) to a given offset. I've described in tablegen this instruction as follow: def DECJNZ : Instruction { let Namespace = "MyTarget"; let

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Michele Scandale <michele.scandale at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > I'm working on an exploratory backend on llvm. In the instruction set I'm using > I have an instruction (called DECJNZ) that decrements a register and, if the > decremented value is not zero, jumps (with a relative jump) to a given offset. > > I've

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > Thanks for the answers! The plan makes sense to me. > > Regarding phis, what about diamonds, e.g.: > > > define i32 @f(i32 %x) { > br .., label %bb0, label %bb1 > bb0: > %cmp = icmp sge i32 %x, 0 ; x > 0 > br i1 %cmp, label %bb2, label %bb3 > bb1: > %x2 = add nsw

Hi, this question might be a bit silly: apart from the language reference(http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#switch-instruction) page, are there additional rules for a regular llvm frontend to generate llvm IRs? There are a few cases that I got from clang/llvm-gcc/dragonegg when compiling *C* source code into llvm IR: 1. It seems that there is ONLY ONE ReturnInst(and NO InvokeInst) for such llvm

On 10/10/13 10:43 AM, Hongxu Chen wrote: > Hi, this question might be a bit silly: apart from the language > reference(http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#switch-instruction) page, are > there additional rules for a regular llvm frontend to generate llvm IRs? > > There are a few cases that I got from clang/llvm-gcc/dragonegg when > compiling *C* source code into llvm IR: > >

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:06 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 10/10/13 10:43 AM, Hongxu Chen wrote: > >> Hi, this question might be a bit silly: apart from the language >> reference(http://llvm.org/**docs/LangRef.html#switch-**instruction<http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#switch-instruction>) >> page, are >> there additional rules

Hi all, I have a doubt on the usage of phi nodes in LLVM: if I define a value in a bb, are phi nodes needed in the blocks that are dominated by the bb where the value is defined? As an example consider the following trivial example: // BB0 A = 5; if (condition) { // BB1 B = 2; } else { // BB2 B = 1; } // BB3 is a phi node required for A in BB3? b.r., Carlo Alberto Ferraris --------------

The following C code : #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> int TESTE2( int parami , int paraml ,double paramd ) { int varx=0,vary; int nI =0; //varx= parami; if( parami > 0 ) { varx = parami; vary = varx + 1; } else { varx = vary + 1; vary = paraml; } varx = varx + parami + paraml; for( nI = 1 ; nI <= paraml; nI++) { varx =

On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Julio <julio.martin.hidalgo at gmail.com> wrote: > I would need to operate in the two loops in rotated form. It can be > considered a bug or I have to introduce manually the header (or modify > myself the ConsiderForLoop to my particular problem)? Try adding "AU.addRequiredID(LoopSimplifyID);AU.addPreservedID(LoopSimplifyID);" to your

On 02/25/2015 10:41 AM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: >>> all the zero paths from entry to %a pass by %b. >> >> That is a graph-wise definition, sure. >> So, this is an interesting definition, and maybe this is part of the source >> of the problem. >> >> For SSA, at least GCC requires that both "definition block dominates use >> block" (which

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

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Many thanks for working on this! > SSI/e-SSA is the only way I'm aware of for doing efficient sparse > analyses, so I'm definitely in favor of adding support for it in LLVM! > > I read the discussion so far and did a cursory review of the patches, and > I have just a

>> all the zero paths from entry to %a pass by %b. > > > That is a graph-wise definition, sure. > So, this is an interesting definition, and maybe this is part of the source > of the problem. > > For SSA, at least GCC requires that both "definition block dominates use > block" (which would be true here), *and* > that "definition appears before use in

Dear all, I'm currently working on the automated program analysis tool AProVE (http://aprove.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/) and would like to use LLVM for analysis of C programs. I have the following example C program dealing with simple lists of integers: ------------ start C example ------------- #include<stdlib.h> struct list_el { int val; struct list_el * next; }; typedef

> > > Conceptually, the LiveDebugValues data flow analysis should be using > three-valued logic arranged in a lattice > > ⊥ (uninitialized / don't know) > / \ > true false (is (not) available) > > where join(x, ⊥) = x, otherwise it behaves like boolean &. > > All debug variable values are initialized to the bottom element first. > After

Il 25/07/2012 10:07, Eli Friedman ha scritto: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Michele Scandale > <michele.scandale at gmail.com> wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> I'm working on an exploratory backend on llvm. In the instruction set I'm using >> I have an instruction (called DECJNZ) that decrements a register and, if the >> decremented value is not

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> Date: Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Updating PHI for Instruction Domination? To: Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com> Since I'm not sure which instructions I might want to replicate, would it be possible to cast the Value from "PHINode::getIncomingValue" to

The following C test program was compiled using LLVM with -O3 option and MSVC with /O2. The MSVC one is about 600 times faster than the one compiled with the LLVM. We can see that the for loop in MSVC assembler is solved in the optimization pass more efficiently than that in LLVM. Is there an way to get a optimization result in LLVM like that of the MSVC? Manoel Teixeira #include