similar to: [LLVMdev] ML types in LLVM

On Jun 13, 2009, at 3:54 AM, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: > Currently I just represent %c as i8*. I assume that this can have > consequences in terms of aliasing. I tried opaque*, but llvm-as didn't > like that. Is there any way to better represent the type %c to LLVM? I assume this is for tagged sums. Logically, what you want is a distinct LLVM type for every ML union type and each of

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 9:44 PM, John McCall<rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 2009, at 3:54 AM, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: > Currently I just represent %c as i8*. I assume that this can have > consequences in terms of aliasing. I tried opaque*, but llvm-as didn't > like that. Is there any way to better represent the type %c to LLVM? > > I assume this is for

Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: > On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 9:44 PM, John McCall<rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: >> On Jun 13, 2009, at 3:54 AM, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: >> Currently I just represent %c as i8*. I assume that this can have >> consequences in terms of aliasing. I tried opaque*, but llvm-as didn't >> like that. Is there any way to better represent the type

On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Florian Weimer<fw at deneb.enyo.de> wrote: > Is this really a problem for MLton?  I think you only get less precise > alias analysis, and that's it. Correct. However, I want a fair comparison between LLVM performance and the native x86 codegen. If I don't give LLVM the same information the x86 codegen has, it's an unfair comparison.

On Sunday 14 June 2009 14:09:33 Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: > On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Florian Weimer<fw at deneb.enyo.de> wrote: > > Is this really a problem for MLton?  I think you only get less precise > > alias analysis, and that's it. > > Correct. However, I want a fair comparison between LLVM performance > and the native x86 codegen. If I don't

>On Sunday 14 June 2009 14:09:33 Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Florian Weimer<fw at deneb.enyo.de> wrote: >> > Is this really a problem for MLton? I think you only get less precise >> > alias analysis, and that's it. >> >> Correct. However, I want a fair comparison between LLVM performance >> and the native x86

Hi all, Suppose in a CFG bb1 has two succesor bb3 and bb4, and bb3 has two predecessor bb1 and bb2. Now how can I insert a basic block between bb1 and bb3 that at the edge bb1-->bb3 . In general how can I insert a basic block on an edge? Regards, Chayan

Hi, I have tried to use SplitEdge function, but failed. Actually the third parameter is a variable of type Pass and it need to be non-null. But I could not figure out how to use it. Please help me out. Regards, Chayan On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Chayan Sarkar wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Suppose in a CFG bb1 has two

Hello, I have two for loops (one inside the other), that after indvars, looprotate, etc. (the important here is the loop rotate), is similar to this (I've stripped the real operations): define i32 @f() nounwind { entry: br label %bb1 bb1: ; preds = %bb3, %bb1, %entry %i.0.reg2mem.0.ph = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %i.0.reg2mem.0.ph, %bb1 ], [ %indvar.next9, %bb3 ] ;

Hi All, Still I could not figure out how to use Pass* while calling SplitEdge() function. Can anyone provide me some example? Regards, Chayan On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Chayan Sarkar wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I have tried to use SplitEdge function, but failed. Actually the third >> parameter is a variable of

I want to do the following: suppose the program structure: bb / \ bb1 bb2 \ / bb3

On May 22, 2014, at 3:51 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Louis Gerbarg <lgg at apple.com> wrote: > The problem that the above transform is technically illegal because “When indexing into a (optionally packed) structure, only i32 integer constants are allowed (when using a vector of indices they must all be the same

Hi all, I have problem with ExtractCodeRegion (CodeExtractor.cpp). My original program is as follows. bb: ... %tmp.15 = load %struct.MYSQL_ROWS** %3, align 4 ... bb1: ... %tmp.1 = load %struct.MYSQL_ROWS** %6, align 4 ... bb4: ; preds = %bb1, %bb, %entry %tmp.0 = phi %struct.MYSQL_ROWS* [ null, %entry ], [ %tmp.15, %bb ], [ %tmp.1, %bb1 ]

Chayan Sarkar wrote: > Hi all, > > Suppose in a CFG bb1 has two succesor bb3 and bb4, and bb3 has two > predecessor bb1 and bb2. Now how can I insert a basic block between > bb1 and bb3 that at the edge bb1-->bb3 . > > In general how can I insert a basic block on an edge? Use llvm::SplitEdge in Transforms/Utils/BasicBlockUtils.h. The technique is to create a new bb with a

Chayan Sarkar wrote: > Hi, > > I have tried to use SplitEdge function, but failed. Actually the third > parameter is a variable of type Pass and it need to be non-null. But I > could not figure out how to use it. Please help me out. The only reason it needs a non-NULL Pass* is to call llvm::SplitBlock which uses P->getAnalysisIfAvailable unconditionally. Feel free to wrap

Hi, I could not figure out, how to declare a Pass*. Can anyone give me an example, how to use SplitEdge() function ? Please help me out. Regards, Chayan On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Chayan Sarkar <chayan.ju at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > Still I could not figure out how to use Pass* while calling > SplitEdge() function. Can anyone provide me some example? > >

I guess I didn't have a clear question. Suppose we have BB1 and BB2 both point to BB3. BB1 has variable x. BB2 also as variable x. BB3 will have PHINode for x with 2 value from BB1 and BB2. BB1 BB2 \ / BB3 Now if BB1 and BB2 is extracted into a function (using ExtractCodeRegion), they will be replaced by a basic block called codeRepl (which has a call to the extracted

Hello, I'm studying how the SCEV analyzis works and how to use it and I could not create an example where the SCEV analyzis identifies an expression as "SCEVAddRecExpr". Aren't the expressions below the kind of pattern that should be represented as a "AddRecExpr" ? SCEV: (1 + (2 * %3) or SCEV: (%1 + (2 * %3) or SCEV: (%1 + (%2 * %3) In my experiments they are

So my best bet is to try and work in reg2mem mode and then go back to mem2reg? I'm curious, it seems though when you split a block that the phis get updated, right? On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com> wrote: > Not that I'm aware of. > > -eric > > On Feb 2, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Ryan Taylor wrote: > > So essentially I'm

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 =