similar to: [LLVMdev] findNearestCommonDominator

Hi! I have seen that findNearestCommonDominator has been added to class PostDominatorTree, maybe on my request. Now there is the following problem: in class DominatorTreeBase there is an assert in findNearestCommonDominator that asserts if the tree is not a PostDominator tree: assert (!this->isPostDominator() && "This is not implemented for post

On 03/07/2010 10:33 PM, Jochen Wilhelmy wrote: > Hi! Hi Jochen, > I have seen that findNearestCommonDominator has been added > to class PostDominatorTree, maybe on my request. > > Now there is the following problem: > in class DominatorTreeBase there is an assert in findNearestCommonDominator > that asserts if the tree is not a PostDominator tree: > > assert

On 03/07/2010 11:09 AM, Jochen Wilhelmy wrote: > Hi! Hi Jochen, > I'd like to find the point where the control flow joins after a branch. > > e.g. if I have the following function > > if (a< b) > foo1(); > else > foo2(); > bar(); > > Then the control flow splits at the basic block containing a< b with > a branch as terminator

This is release_50 branch of git, sha1: f1d5723be3f9456a6b16cdf687847ac2918846de Using gcc 7.2.0 from homebrew. $ CC=/usr/local/opt/gcc/bin/x86_64-apple-darwin16.7.0-gcc-7 CXX=/usr/local/opt/gcc/bin/x86_64-apple-darwin16.7.0-g++-7 cmake .. -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/Users/andy/local/llvm5 -DCMAKE_PREFIX_PATH=/Users/andy/local/llvm5 $ make VERBOSE=1 [ 92%] Linking CXX

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

On 04/07/2010 08:10 PM, Jochen Wilhelmy wrote: > Hi! > > while trying to use llvm::DominatorTreeBase on a custom graph that > has nothing to do with llvm::BasicBlock I ran into some difficulties, > because llvm::DominatorTreeBase calls e.g. getParent()->front() > directly on the nodes Yes this is a problem. However how is it related to your proposal? Do you want to add a

Hi! while trying to use llvm::DominatorTreeBase on a custom graph that has nothing to do with llvm::BasicBlock I ran into some difficulties, because llvm::DominatorTreeBase calls e.g. getParent()->front() directly on the nodes and uses llvm::Inverse which forced me to implement my GraphTraits also for Inverse. This could be solved using a compile time abstraction of Graph instread of

On Mar 6, 2010, at 3:39 AM, Jochen Wilhelmy wrote: > Hi! > > I wonder if llvm::APFloat::toString() can be const since > it should not modify the APFloat. Done in r97883, thanks.

On Friday 19 September 2008 17:50, Devang Patel wrote: > On Sep 19, 2008, at 3:38 PM, David Greene wrote: > >>> So I thought about adding a pass that simply numbers Instructions, > >>> have > >>> DominatorTrees depend on that pass and then the dominates() question > >>> can just > >>> return whether one Instruction number is > the

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Jochen Wilhelmy <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de> wrote: > Hi! > > while trying to use llvm::DominatorTreeBase on a custom graph that > has nothing to do with llvm::BasicBlock I ran into some difficulties, > because llvm::DominatorTreeBase calls e.g. getParent()->front() > directly on the nodes and uses llvm::Inverse which forced me to >

When looking into https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24866, I discovered that the root cause of the crash is that I was expecting every basic block to have a corresponding Node in the dominator tree. Apparently, the "while.end" basic block in the example does not have a Node in the Dominator Tree. Can anyone tell me if this is expected? If so, under what circumstances?

On Sep 19, 2008, at 4:03 PM, David Greene wrote: >> Well, one of the domiantor info interface is >> bool dominates(Instruction *A, Instruction *B); >> This will return invalid results. So yes, the info is dirty. > > Not right now it isn't. Right now dominators simply iterates through > instructions. Aha... OK. > In my proposed scheme, it would be dirty only

Hi Piotr, On March 31, 2017 at 1:07:12 PM, Piotr Padlewski (piotr.padlewski at gmail.com) wrote: > [snip] > Do I understand it correctly, that it is legal to do the hoist because all > of the instructions above %vtable does not throw? Yes, I think you're right.  HeaderMayThrow is a conservative approximation, and the conservativeness is biting us here. > Are there any plans to

On Sep 19, 2008, at 3:38 PM, David Greene wrote: >>> So I thought about adding a pass that simply numbers Instructions, >>> have >>> DominatorTrees depend on that pass and then the dominates() question >>> can just >>> return whether one Instruction number is > the other. >>> >>> The number will get out of date as soon as

Hi there, I'm currently writing an analysis (for now) pass for LLVM that kind of need some information from the CallGraph of the program. This info would be extremely easy to get if I could build the DominatorTree information about the CallGraph. I even checked out and saw the declarations of GraphTraits templates for CallGraph and CallGraphNode, which might indicate that all algorithms that

Hi Chijun, Great, seems like you did a lot of progress and understand the issues quite well! I have done some early sketch on the API of the new updater class. > From my current understanding, to solve the fragmentation problem of > the API, the new class first, need to maintain the DomTree and > PostDomTree class and deprecate the DefferredDominance class. > There are a couple of

Btw, here is another interesting paper about post-dominators and control dependence: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cbb2/9a0e4895025bd9df24f9263217df12f1ed1e.pdf I think a great outcome of your internship would be some precise documentation regarding the guarantees the LLVM dominators give -- possibly also considering classic and weak control dependence and the difference between

Hi Chijun, I left you my feedback in the doc (+ some nitpicks). Overall, it looks very solid and shows you understand the problem well and know what to expect. Your proposed timeline is reasonable and I don't see any major things to improve there. Don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions related to my comments (either here or in the document). Thanks, Kuba On Wed, Mar 21,

Hi Kuba, Thanks for your feedback. I have made some improvements on the proposal according to your feedback and clarify something on the time availability. I left comments on the questions you asked in the doc. Please check it out. Thanks, Chijun 2018-03-22 10:37 GMT+08:00 Jakub (Kuba) Kuderski <kubakuderski at gmail.com>: > Hi Chijun, > > I left you my feedback in the doc (+

Hi Tobias, 1) Daniel and Chandler have for a long time been talking about computing > dominance and post-dominance in one shot to reduce the cost of > post-dominance and make it (freely) available everywhere. Is this > covered by your current (or planned) work? I'm not sure what you exactly mean by one shot; I'll ask around tomorrow. I wanted to play a little bit with your