similar to: [LLVMdev] DS-AA reports erroneous NoModRef

Hi, I am using the scc_iterator class in my code on a CallGraph, where some functions are not called from within the module. It seems that scc_iterator does not list all SCCs if the graph is not connected; only those nodes connected to the node pointed to by GraphTraits<...>::getEntryNode() are returned. Can someone verify this behavior? Any tips on how I should go about extending the

On Sep 3, 2009, at 4:15 AM, Hans Vandierendonck wrote: Hi, > > I am using the scc_iterator class in my code on a CallGraph, where > some > functions are not called from within the module. It seems that > scc_iterator does not list all SCCs if the graph is not connected; > only > those nodes connected to the node pointed to by > GraphTraits<...>::getEntryNode() are

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Sep 3, 2009, at 4:15 AM, Hans Vandierendonck wrote: > Hi, >> >> I am using the scc_iterator class in my code on a CallGraph, where some >> functions are not called from within the module. It seems that >> scc_iterator does not list all SCCs if the graph is not connected; only >> those nodes connected to the node pointed to by >>

HI guys. I'm trying to build the poolalloc on llvm-2.0 but there exist some errors. Can you tell me which version of llvm is known to make the poolalloc build and install successful? Thanks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20070710/4ab5e155/attachment.html>

I see that there are several options to influence instruction scheduling, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of information about what they do, for example: -misched-topdown -misched-bottomup The description in MachineScheduler.cpp says: "Force top-down list scheduling" and "Force bottom-up list scheduling" Which isn't too helpful - where might I want to use these?

I think those should be considered internal options for (llvm codegen) developers, a normal compiler user should not need to use any of them. Of course you can look around the llvm sourcecode (esp. in lib/CodeGen/MachineScheduler.cpp) and see what cl::opt options are available and how they affect the scheduler operation. In case of the MachineScheduler all settings are the same regardless of the

Greeting. I am working on one DSA related project. Got several questions about LLVM's DSA analysis: 1. I looked through the llvm doc, it seems "-ds-aa" option is the one I should use. (http://llvm.org/docs/AliasAnalysis.html#the-ds-aa-pass). however based on the poolalloc's svn history, this option was removed on (or before) 2011. May I know why this one was removed ? and is

Hello All,I am Nirmal Singhania from NIIT University,India. I am interested in Clustering of search results Topic. I have been in field of practical machine learning and information retrieval from quite some time. I took various courses/MOOC on Information retrieval and Text Mining and have been working on real life datasets(KDD99,AWID,Movielens). Because the problems you face in real life ML/IR

On 5/19/13 11:46 AM, Jing Zhou wrote: > Greeting. > > I am working on one DSA related project. Got several questions about > LLVM's DSA analysis: > > 1. I looked through the llvm doc, it seems "-ds-aa" option is the one > I should use. > (http://llvm.org/docs/AliasAnalysis.html#the-ds-aa-pass). however > based on the poolalloc's svn history, this

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

Dear Developers, In current implementation of validity method, objects are first coerced to superclass (slots are striped). Thus, it is not possible to write validity method which would perform some checks on children slots. Say, I want to check if number of slots in a class is equal to "n": setClass("A", representation(a="numeric", n="integer"),

Hi Ambika, > Oh m sorry for that mistake as I had points to in mind. > But still what about the following prog: > > int main() > { > int *i,*j,k; > i=&k; > j=&k; > k=4; > printf("%d,%d,%d",*i,*j,k); > return 0; > } > > > here too i dont get <i,j> alias each other. how are you

to compile it to bitcode I give the following command : llvm-gcc -emit-llvm -c -o s.bc s.c and then I run different alias analysis passes like -anders-aa, -basicaa using following: opt -anders-aa -aa-eval -print-all-alias-modref-info s.bc From this I get the following output: Function: main: 8 pointers, 1 call sites NoAlias: i32* %retval, i32** %j NoAlias: i32* %retval, i32**

Oh m sorry for that mistake as I had points to in mind. But still what about the following prog: int main() { int *i,*j,k; i=&k; j=&k; k=4; printf("%d,%d,%d",*i,*j,k); return 0; } here too i dont get <i,j> alias each other. Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi ambika, > >> main() { >> int i,*k; >> k =

I was reading the code in AliasAnalysis.cpp and happened to notice what looks like a bug. See the line marked by '*' below: AliasAnalysis::ModRefResult AliasAnalysis::getModRefInfo(const VAArgInst *V, const Location &Loc) { // If the va_arg address cannot alias the pointer in question, then the // specified memory cannot be accessed by the va_arg. if (!alias(getLocation(V),

> > Sigh > I should have taken the time to give a better example. > The must-alias part is irrelevant to an example (it only requires > read-onlyness) > > You said "LICM doesn't move calls, so we'd never really care about > must-alias for promotion". I was just pointing out other things move calls > any may want to know. > > If you want an example

Hi there, I am trying to understand how AliasAnalysis works out in LLVM. I used the following simple test-case (test4.c): -- void test() { int *jj, *kk; int aa = 100; jj = &aa; *jj = 300; } int main() { test(); return 0; } -- Then I did "llvm-gcc -emit-llvm -c -o test4.bc test4.c" to get bc. I tried the following 2 ways to get what I expect to get as

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 10/10/2017 02:49 PM, Alina Sbirlea wrote: > > Sigh >> I should have taken the time to give a better example. >> The must-alias part is irrelevant to an example (it only requires >> read-onlyness) >> >> You said "LICM doesn't move calls, so we'd never really

> In your new proposal, doing & on the result of getModRef() may yield unexpected results. Agreed. I made the change I proposed locally, and, while it simplifies some cases, it makes other bit-wise operations look unintuitive. > Maybe we should just hide all that in inline functions or something and make it an enum class Noted, and looking into this option. Hoping a couple of static

I was not sharing it on maling list because i thought that someone can use all ideas i proposed in their GSOC proposal. Surely i will contribute to xapian project. sorry if that was against the rules The algorithm is not developed by me but after having much research on various clustering techniques. I found that there is a new algorithm called CLUBS(Clustering Using Binary Splitting) which gives