similar to: [LLVMdev] [Fwd: Re: insertAfter method Patch]

Hi, Is this the right mailing list for sending in diffs by irregular contributers? Should I send diffs directly to the code owner instead? Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas B. Jablin" <tjablin at CS.Princeton.EDU> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 1:55:09 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern

Does any real code benefit from dead code eliminating read-only functions? Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Reid Kleckner" <rnk at mit.edu> To: "Thomas B. Jablin" <tjablin at CS.Princeton.EDU> Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 9:38:47 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [LLVMdev]

What do you think of this patch? I have added a check for the case I mentioned in the previous email as well as a similar situation I discovered later. Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Gohman" <gohman at apple.com> To: "Thomas B. Jablin" <tjablin at CS.Princeton.EDU> Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent:

Thomas B. Jablin wrote: > Hi, > I have added an insertAfter method to the ilist and Instruction classes. The methods are implemented as efficiently as the currently existing insert and insertBefore methods. The insertAfter method was created to mirror a similar method in another compiler in order to ease an ongoing port. The patch, which is very small is included as AddInsertBefore.patch.

Sorry. Here is the correct version. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas B. Jablin" <tjablin at CS.Princeton.EDU> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Friday, December 5, 2008 1:08:57 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] MachineCodeEmitter Patch Evan, Here are the modifications you asked for. I have, for the

Hi, Here is the diff for the pod file that goes with my earlier change. Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas B. Jablin" <tjablin at CS.Princeton.EDU> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 1:30:24 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [LLVMdev] Specifying Additional Compilation Passes to lli Hi,

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Thomas B. Jablin <tjablin at cs.princeton.edu> wrote: > Hi, > The call target pass in the poolalloc suite yields an incorrect output for the following short test program: The DSA results are now (r56847) correct for this test case. The call is marked incomplete. Doing better is actually a pathological case in DSA which is hard to fix without

John Criswell wrote: > Small nitpick: in Instruction.cpp, the comment for insertAfter says > insertBefore and not insertAfter. > :) > > -- John T. > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > Thanks for spotting

Hi, I have added an insertAfter method to the ilist and Instruction classes. The methods are implemented as efficiently as the currently existing insert and insertBefore methods. The insertAfter method was created to mirror a similar method in another compiler in order to ease an ongoing port. The patch, which is very small is included as AddInsertBefore.patch. Additionally, I wrote a small test

Thanks. I do not have commit privilege. Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Evan Cheng" <evan.cheng at apple.com> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Monday, December 8, 2008 5:39:33 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] MachineCodeEmitter Patch Looks good. Do you have commit privilege? Evan On Nov 22, 2008, at

Hi, I saw that Nick Lewycky removed the LLVM portable hash_map and hash_sets. My research group was relying on those classes. What replaces hash_map and hash_set? The LLVM implementation was very convenient as there is no equivalent in STL, and Microsoft's implementation had a different name, as does the C++ 0X implementation. Thanks. Tom Jablin

Nevermind. I misread the documentation. On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Thomas Jablin <tjablin at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Is it valid to query ScalarEvolution::getSCEVAtScope with a Value > which is an Instruction inside the provided Loop? If so, I believe > there is a bug in computeSCEVAtScope. Specifically: > > 04716     // If the scope is outside the

----- "Evan Cheng" <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > On Sep 16, 2008, at 8:44 AM, Thomas B. Jablin wrote: > > > Evan, > > So, if I understand you correctly, the design you have in mind is > > to: create a PassManager, pass it to the JIT on construction, and > > modify runJITOnFunction to run the second PassManager on the > > Function

Hi, The call target pass in the poolalloc suite yields an incorrect output for the following short test program: #include <stdio.h> struct OP { void (*func)(struct OP*); }; void bar(struct OP *op); void foo(struct OP *op) { printf("Foo\n"); op->func = bar; } void bar(struct OP *op) { printf("Bar\n"); op->func = foo; } int main(int argc, char **argv)

Hi Hisham, Most likely the basic blocks are the headers of two different loops. Try running viewCFG() on the function in question to see if this is the case. Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hisham Chowdhury" <hisham_chow at yahoo.com> To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 7:22:00 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [LLVMdev] Loopinfo Analysis

Dear Devang Patel, In response to your comment on bug 1868, how do I get BottomPass to requires Pass2 before Pass1? Is it by reversing the order of the calls to AU.addRequired()? -- John T. -- John T. Criswell jcriswel at bigw.org "It's today!" said Piglet. "My favorite day," said Pooh.

Hello, I have a question regrading the analysis pass that generates loop info from an .ll code. My previous understanding was there will be just one loop header(in the loop info) for a particular loop. But, when i use isLoopHeader() member function from the loop info class I get 'true' return value for two different basic blocks. Note both basic blocks are loop conditional block(break

Jon, > You want: > TaintVar->insertAfter(FirstI); This worked! Thank you. On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > > > On 8/25/16 7:01 AM, Shehbaz Jaffer via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> I tried an alternative way of adding instruction by first getting the >> first instruction of the basic block, and then

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101371 Bug ID: 101371 Summary: GlobalCSE Pass moves phi instructions Product: Mesa Version: git Hardware: x86-64 (AMD64) OS: Linux (All) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Drivers/DRI/nouveau Assignee: nouveau

Why not just use Instruction::insertAfter()? I->insertAfter(new_inst); On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Ryan Taylor via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Try incrementing the iterator before using. > > On Sep 5, 2016 10:26, "Simona Simona via llvm-dev" < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 3:20 AM, Daniel