similar to: [LLVMdev] Post-dominance analysis for multiple-exit functions

On Aug 24, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley wrote: > Many published analyses which build on post-dominance assume a > canonical single-dominator-tree form induced by unifying all exits > (and often adding a virtual edge from START to END). In contrast, it > seems that the current LLVM post-dominator analysis only operates in a > mode in which it generates a forest of

Hi folks, For the past month I’ve been working on improving the DominatorTree and PostDominatorTree in LLVM. The RFC that explains the motivations and plans can be found here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-June/114045.html . Here’s a short summary of what changed upstream since posting it: - We switched from the Simple Lengauer-Tarjan algorithm for computing dominators

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

There is PostDominatorTree for determining post-dominance. Even if A post-dominates B and B is executed, that doesn't guarantee that A will be executed. For example, there could be an infinite loop in-between. Strong post-dominance makes the stronger guarantee that there will be no infinite loop from B to A. Do we have anything in LLVM for determining strong post-dominance and in general for

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Evgeny Astigeevich <Evgeny.Astigeevich at arm.com> wrote: > Hi Anirudh, > > > > I hope these lecture slides about SSA and the dominance frontier will help > you with SSA and control flow analysis: > > > > http://www.seas.harvard.edu/courses/cs252/2011sp/slides/Lec04-SSA.pdf > > > > Unfortunately a use of

George Baah <georgebaah at gmail.com> writes: > 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

This is surely a simple question, but it appears that PostDominatorTree does not provide an interface to get at post dominator data. Also, it is not a concrete subclass of DominatorTree, as is presented in the doxygen page and the commented source. Any way to get post-dom data without hacking it into PostDominatorTree?

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 all, While working on a loadable Alias Analysis module pass, I'm running into the following issue: I'm finding my pass queried for results after it has had 'releaseMemory' called on it and its dependencies, but before runOnModule is called again (on my pass or its deps). As you might expect, this makes my pass rather unhappy (and I think correctly so). This happens with LICM

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.

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. Strangely enough, the Pass running when the assert triggers is Dominance Frontier

I'm running 9.2-RC4 on a handful of desktop and server machines (both i386 and amd64). I have seen three panics (all vm_page_unwire) on one of those systems only (amd64 server) during the past week. The first two panics were triggered when shutting down the ntpd daemon (a recent development snapshot version of ntpd: 4.2.7p387). Exiting a later release (p388) has not triggered the panic.

Hi! I wonder if llvm::APFloat::toString() can be const since it should not modify the APFloat. -Jochen

Hi Andrew, Thanks a lot. But the function "DT->dominate(A,B)" decides the dominance relationship through comparing the DFS numbers, right? At least, in my example, when I check whether the newly split node (i.e., % *for.end.split*) DOMINATES the original node (I.e., %for.end), the answer is true, which is obviously wrong. Paul On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Andrew Trick

Hi Fellows, I am writing a pass that requires the DominatorTree pass. In the runOnFunction of my own pass, I call llvm::SplitBlock to split a block (%for.end) at it's first insert point. Then, when I dump my dominator tree immediately after, I can see the newly split %for.end.split, but its DFSNumIn and DFSNumOut are not properly updated in llvm::SplitBlock (i.e., still the initialized

Thank you John. Actually the opt tool (from LLVM 3.2 version) can generate the needed graphs (with pass "-domfrontier"). But I just want to surely know is there some pass or builder which can be integrated somehow so it will be possible directly to generate CDG? -- View this message in context: http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/Control-Dependence-Graph-builder-tp56687p56689.html Sent

I think you can also avoid the RDF computation using a more directed form of control dependence testing such as described in Keshav Pingali and Gianfranco Bilardi. 1997. Optimal control dependence computation and the Roman chariots problem. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 19, 3 (May 1997), 462-491. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/256167.256217 However one challenge seems to be fixing the SSA graph

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 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 Daniel, Thanks a lot for all these explanation, I will try it out. Hongbin On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> >> wrote: