similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM 2.4 Dominance Frontier Problem

On Feb 18, 2009, at 8:00 AM, David Greene wrote: > I just finished upgrading our LLVM to 2.4 and I immediately ran into > a problem > with dominance frontier calculation: > > llvm/lib/VMCore/PassManager.cpp:714: void > llvm::PMDataManager::verifyDomInfo(llvm::Pass&, llvm::Function&): > Assertion > `0 && "Invalid dominator info"' failed.

On Wednesday 18 February 2009 10:35, Devang Patel wrote: > On Feb 18, 2009, at 8:00 AM, David Greene wrote: > > I just finished upgrading our LLVM to 2.4 and I immediately ran into > > a problem > > with dominance frontier calculation: > > > > llvm/lib/VMCore/PassManager.cpp:714: void > > llvm::PMDataManager::verifyDomInfo(llvm::Pass&,

Hi, I found that LLVM 3.1 says Dominance frontier is deprecated. Can anyone please tell me, if there is any replacement for Dominance frontier & Postdominance frontier in LLVM? What are the options if we need to use them? Thanks, Swarup. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: Sorry I never responded to this: > In the literature (see below for a reference), when a dominance frontier > is computed, it is computed from a CFG that contains a dummy entry node > and dummy exit node. Further, those dummy nodes are potential members > of the (post-)dominance frontier for a given basic block. In LLVM, I > could not

In the literature (see below for a reference), when a dominance frontier is computed, it is computed from a CFG that contains a dummy entry node and dummy exit node. Further, those dummy nodes are potential members of the (post-)dominance frontier for a given basic block. In LLVM, I could not figure out a way to determine if the dummy entry node is a member of the post-dominance frontier of

On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Cameron Zwarich <zwarich at apple.com> wrote: > On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:27 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > Note: GCC takes exactly the same approach as LLVM here, for exactly > the reason chris specifies. > In fact, until we started local SSA updating (which is now many years > ago, but ...), dominance frontier calculation for ssa updating was in

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 6, 2012, at 5:08 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > >>>> >>>> It's very like SSA construction, but must make provision >>>> testing anti dependences.  I had planned to use dominance frontiers to >>>> guide placement of phi nodes, as usual. >>>

On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:27 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > Note: GCC takes exactly the same approach as LLVM here, for exactly > the reason chris specifies. > In fact, until we started local SSA updating (which is now many years > ago, but ...), dominance frontier calculation for ssa updating was in > the top 10 profile functions for GCC compiles of large source files. > I had tried a

Try breaking the critical edges (-break-crit-edges). This way, a new block will be created between BB13 and BB11 (call this BB11.break) and BB15 and BB12 (call this BB12.break). The predecessors of the dominance frontier will, thus, be BB11.break, BB12.break, and BB14. When we enter through a block with a call to malloc(), we will end up in one of the blocks in the dominance frontier (kind of).

Hi Henrique, I have tried using -mergereturn and inserting a free into the predecessors of dominance frontier of malloc block and it caused double free. It is possible for multiple free's to be inserted on the path from malloc to an exit. For example, in the following CFG: BB10 (malloc) / \ BB11 BB12 ... / \ / \

> > It seems that placing the calls to free at the predecessors of dominance > frontier is inadequate. It is possible that there are exit blocks that are > dominated by BB12 (calls to malloc). I guess we can also insert calls to > free at these exit blocks too. That crossed my mind a few minutes later. : ) If you're interested, PRE.cpp existed last at r25315. It calculates the

On Jan 6, 2012, at 5:08 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >>> >>> It's very like SSA construction, but must make provision >>> testing anti dependences. I had planned to use dominance frontiers to >>> guide placement of phi nodes, as usual. >> >> Ok, in that case, please check out include/llvm/Transforms/Utils/SSAUpdater.h, >> which is the

Reading the comments in Analysis/DominanceFrontier.h, I see a note that the structure is deprecated and we're not to use it for anything new. Has it been replaced with something equally useful, or shall I redo the calculation for myself, or ...? Thanks, Preston -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Here's how I did things, back when I got to write my own infrastructure. It's still O(n^2) in the worst case, but *much* quicker in the expected case. Number all the basic blocks, 0 to n-1 and build a vector mapping from integer to block. Requires O(n) time and space. For each block, compute the set containing it's dominance frontier, based on Figure 10 of * * *Efficiently

Thanks! I will try that and see whether it works. On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Henrique Santos < henrique.nazare.santos at gmail.com> wrote: > It seems that placing the calls to free at the predecessors of dominance >> frontier is inadequate. It is possible that there are exit blocks that are >> dominated by BB12 (calls to malloc). I guess we can also insert calls to

Hi Henrique, Thanks for the quick reply! On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Henrique Santos < henrique.nazare.santos at gmail.com> wrote: > PRE normally uses a latest placement algorithm to do something of the sort. > I don't know about GVN/PRE, but older version of PRE might have it. > Just placing the calls to free at the predecessors (dominated by BB12) of > the dominance

Bill, Just in case this is relevant for you: If you're working with C++ code, or otherwise have any functions that might throw exceptions, you might also need to catch those exceptions in order to free the allocated memory. This will involve looking for calls to functions that mayThrow(), changing their calls to invokes, and freeing the memory before resuming the unwinding. -Hal -----

A while ago I reported a bug in the computation of the post-dominance frontier (PDF). I submitted it as http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=1069, and it is now marked as a duplicate of http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=1098, which is still an open bug. I needed the PDF to compute control dependencies for code on which I'm working. I was not familiar with the algorithm used in LLVM

Hi Guys, I saw in the API that DominanceFrontier has been deprecated. Is this for real? I have read the computational issues but shouldn't that be left to the users of llvm? My concern is I am writing a Control Dependence module that uses Dominance-Frontier information. Getting rid of Dominance Frontiers will put me in a tight spot. George -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

Hi, I am trying to find out the scale efficiency and optimal scale of banks by stochastic frontier analysis given the panel data of bank. I am free to choose any model of stochastic frontier analysis. The only approach I know to work with R is to estimate a translog production function by sfa or other related function in frontier package, and then use the Ray 1998 formula to find the scale