similar to: [LLVMdev] SSI in LLVM

Dear Community, I'm working on a project for Google Summer of Code, to implement the ABCD and Bitwidth analysis in LLVM. I'm not going to extend the description of the project here, this link shows my proposal http://homepages.dcc.ufmg.br/~andrelct/projects/gsoc_2009/proposal. I have been in some discussions on this list about Ada and SSI that helped on my decisions up to this

Dear Nicolas, I'm curious why you are using ABCD in vmkit. Do you need any features from static array bounds checking? As far as I know, SAFECode has a number of implementation for that. Thanks. Haohui On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 20:48 +0200, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Dear Andre, > > That's great! Thanks for the blog. I am really looking forward into > using ABCD in vmkit!

Mai, Haohui wrote: > Dear Nicolas, > > I'm curious why you are using ABCD in vmkit. Do you need any features > from static array bounds checking? As far as I know, SAFECode has a > number of implementation for that. > > Thanks. > > Haohui > > On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 20:48 +0200, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > >> Dear Andre, >> >> That's

Dear Andre, That's great! Thanks for the blog. I am really looking forward into using ABCD in vmkit! Cheers, Nicolas Andre Tavares wrote: > Dear Community, > > I'm working on a project for Google Summer of Code, to implement the > ABCD and Bitwidth analysis in LLVM. I'm not going to extend the > description of the project here, this link shows my proposal >

By static array bounds checking, I mean eliminating array bounds checking which can be proved ``safe'' at compile-time. Well, even though there are a lot of approaches of doing this, I believe that having an implementation of ABCD would very useful. It would be even more useful if LLVM can have a general framework for doing static array bounds checking -- just like the aliasing framework.

2009/3/27 Andre Tavares <andrelct at dcc.ufmg.br> > I'm a Computer Science master student at UFMG, Brasil. I'm interested in > taking part on Google Summer of Codes 2009. My idea is not on the LLVM list, > but I have written a project description to make my intentions clear. My > project is attached as a pdf file. By changing LLVM IR from SSA to SSI, you propose to

Dear LLVM Community, I'm a Computer Science master student at UFMG, Brasil. I'm interested in taking part on Google Summer of Codes 2009. My idea is not on the LLVM list, but I have written a project description to make my intentions clear. My project is attached as a pdf file. Regards, -- Andre Tavares Master Student in Computer Science - UFMG - Brasil http://dcc.ufmg.br/~andrelct

2009/3/29 Misha Brukman <brukman at gmail.com>: > 2009/3/27 Andre Tavares <andrelct at dcc.ufmg.br> >> >> I'm a Computer Science master student at UFMG, Brasil. I'm interested in >> taking part on Google Summer of Codes 2009. My idea is not on the LLVM list, >> but I have written a project description to make my intentions clear. My >> project

Hi Douglas, On 21.02.2011 20:27, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote: > My work is not part of the LLVM mainline yet. But I would be happy to > contribute with the code of my range analysis implementation if it can help > you in something else. We were thinking of adding VRP to LLVM too, though we were mostly interested in Patterson's approach (i.e. not connected with SSI form). It

Dear LLVMers, my name is Douglas, and I would like to participate in the Summer of Code this year. I am currently a Computer Science student at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil, and I work as a research assistant at the Programming Languages Lab, in that university. I work together with Andre Tavares and Andrei Rimsa, two summer of coders last year, and my advisor is Fernando

On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Mai, Haohui wrote: > By static array bounds checking, I mean eliminating array bounds > checking > which can be proved ``safe'' at compile-time. Even though SAFECode does have such a pass, there are some tradeoffs with the current version: 1. It uses an external solver (Omega), which is one more dependence for LLVM in general. I don't have

Vikram S. Adve wrote: > On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Mai, Haohui wrote: > > >> By static array bounds checking, I mean eliminating array bounds >> checking >> which can be proved ``safe'' at compile-time. >> > > Even though SAFECode does have such a pass, there are some tradeoffs > with the current version: > > 1. It uses an

I tried to make 5 separate patches, but as they are constructive, they had information from the last one. So I will post one by one as it gets on the tree. 1. We had a function isUsedInTerminator that tested if a comparator was used in the terminator of its parent BasicBlock. This is wrong because a comparator can be created in a BasicBlock and used in the terminator of other BasicBlock, and

I would like to make a suggestion. In the LiveIntervalAnalysis class, instead of numbering the instructions in the order in which basic blocks are stored in the machine function, use the df_ext_iterator. It will order the instruction according to the dominance tree (or it seems to be doing so). There are many advantages in doing this. One of them is that, once you traverse the dominance tree

Hi Evan, Here is a patch for the LiveIntervalAnalysis that we discussed. --- Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> schrieb: > > 1) What is the easiest way to understand which MBB a given > instruction index belongs to? All the required information is > available in the > > MBB2IdxMap of the LiveIntervalAnalysis class. Would it be useful > to add a small function

Thanks. One question though. Should getMBBFromIndex() assert if given an index out of the range or simply returns a NULL pointer? I would think the later makes it a bit more friendly. Evan On Feb 8, 2008, at 8:59 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote: > Hi Evan, > > Here is a patch for the LiveIntervalAnalysis that we discussed. > > --- Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com>

Hi Fernando, Thanks for the very clear explanation. Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > simulation: it does not add instructions to LLVM IR. Instead, it builds an > interval representation for each variable. Each interval represents a > variable in SSI form, and will be associated to one or more constraints, > like v > 10, or v > a.length. A query will have to find the

Dear All, Perhaps a related issue is whether SSI form is valuable for other transformations or analysis passes. If it is, then it might be worth building general SSA->SSI and SSI->SSA transforms so that any LLVM pass wishing to have the code in SSI form can do so. -- John T. Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > [snip] > > OK. Is it possible to do SSI Transformation --> Array Bounds

Hi Evan, --- Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > Thanks. One question though. Should getMBBFromIndex() assert if given > an index out of the range or simply returns a NULL pointer? I would > think the later makes it a bit more friendly. Yes. It would be more friendly, probably. I can submit such a patch, if you think it suits better. On the other hand I want to

One of my pass requires LiveIntervals to build the interference graph, because LiveVariables do not provide an interface to iterate through all viritual registers. But LiveIntervalAnalysis.h is not in "include/llvm/CodeGen", so I have to either include it by: #include "../../llvm/lib/CodeGen/LiveIntervalAnalysis.h" or point my project include path to