similar to: [LLVMdev] ABCD Example Failure Given Here

On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:47 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Eric Kidd wrote: >> The duplicate loads appear at the top of the %regex6 and %regex2 >> blocks below. I've tried various alias analysis implementations >> either alone or in combination. > > LICM doesn't remove common subexpressions, also -load-vn doesn't > affect LICM. Try

On Mar 17, 2006, at 7:54 AM, Eric Kidd wrote: > Unfortunately, this generates really weird code on the LLVM 1.6 > PowerPC backend: > > LBB_matches_1: ; regex6 > lbz r4, 0(r3) > LBB_matches_2: ; NodeBlock > rlwinm r5, r4, 0, 24, 31 > cmplwi cr0, r5, 98 > blt cr0, LBB_matches_4 ; LeafBlock > LBB_matches_3: ; LeafBlock1 >

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Eric Kidd wrote: > Hello! I'm compiling code which uses pointers as iterators. For some > reason--probably a silly misunderstanding of the docs--I can't eliminate > duplicate pointer loads. I'll probably figure this out eventually, but if > somebody else sees the answer instantly, I certainly won't complain. :-) There are no stupid questions.

Hello! I'm compiling code which uses pointers as iterators. For some reason--probably a silly misunderstanding of the docs--I can't eliminate duplicate pointer loads. I'll probably figure this out eventually, but if somebody else sees the answer instantly, I certainly won't complain. :-) Here are the optimizers I'm running: opt -f -simplifycfg -dce -instcombine

Hi, I'm trying to solve a problem from StructurizeCFG not actually handling regions with multiple exits. Sample IR attached. StructurizeCFG doesn't touch this function, exiting early on the isTopLevelRegion check. SIAnnotateControlFlow then gets confused and ends up inserting an if into one of the blocks, and the matching end.cf into one of the return/unreachable blocks. The input to

Is there a way (without writing a pass to manually copy the block, etc) to eliminate this type of CFG creation? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120403/c00c377d/attachment.html>

hi Ryan, Any example? best regards ether On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > Is there a way (without writing a pass to manually copy the block, etc) to > eliminate this type of CFG creation? > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu

Create an object hierarchy to represent different bootloaders for Linux guests, moving the separate handling of grub1 and grub2 in different classes: this isolates the code for each type of bootloader together, instead of scattering it all around. This is mostly code refactoring, with no actual behaviour change. --- po/POTFILES-ml | 1 + v2v/Makefile.am | 2 + v2v/bootloaders.ml

Detect only once which method must be used to get and set the default Grub2 kernel in the guest: this avoids the same checks in list_kernels and set_default_kernel. Also, add a "no method" option as well: Debian/Ubuntu guests do not have neither grubby nor Perl's Bootloader::Tools, so there is no way to know what is the default kernel, nor to change it. In this case, add a warning

Hi, this series adds a couple bits more in v2v to convert Debian/Ubuntu (and derived) guests. The series does not complete the support (see known issues below), but all the patches here should be fit for review and inclusion. The series does not enable the conversion, yet. Known issues: * currently tested with simple local guest images, hence needs testing with real guests on

Create an object hierarchy to represent different bootloaders for Linux guests, moving the separate handling of grub1 and grub2 in different classes. This will allow us to support more bootloaders in the future. This is mostly code refactoring, with no actual behaviour change. --- po/POTFILES-ml | 1 + v2v/Makefile.am | 2 + v2v/bootloaders.ml | 317

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 04:48:29PM +0200, Pino Toscano wrote: > Create an object hierarchy to represent different bootloaders for Linux > guests, moving the separate handling of grub1 and grub2 in different > classes: this isolates the code for each type of bootloader together, > instead of scattering it all around. > > This is mostly code refactoring, with no actual behaviour

Create an object hierarchy to represent different bootloaders for Linux guests, moving the separate handling of grub1 and grub2 in different classes: this isolates the code for each type of bootloader together, instead of scattering it all around. This is mostly code refactoring, with no actual behaviour change. --- po/POTFILES-ml | 1 + v2v/Makefile.am | 2 +

Hi, this series adds a couple bits more in v2v to convert Debian/Ubuntu (and derived) guests. The series does not complete the support (see known issues below), but all the patches here should be fit for review and inclusion. The series does not enable the conversion, yet. Known issues: * currently tested with simple local guest images, hence needs testing with real guests on

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1419 Bug ID: 1419 Summary: abcd Product: bugzilla Version: other Hardware: x86_64 OS: All Status: ASSIGNED Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: netfilter bugzilla Assignee: netfilter-buglog at lists.netfilter.org

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1420 Bug ID: 1420 Summary: abcd Product: bugzilla Version: other Hardware: x86_64 OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: netfilter bugzilla Assignee: 826706276 at qq.com Reporter: 826706276 at

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 >

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

Is the ABCD pass ready for stress testing? If so, we can do some of this. I guess it would be ready for stress testing if: - it already works fairly well for moderate-sized inputs - someone is willing to act on bug reports Thanks, John Regehr

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