similar to: [LLVMdev] insertion points for newly created instructions

Thanks for your reply! > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I've been scratching my head with a little problem: how to determine the >> insertion point for a newly created instruction? >> The operands of these instructions can be defined in different BBs, and >> they >> may have several

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > Hi, > > I've been scratching my head with a little problem: how to determine the > insertion point for a newly created instruction? > The operands of these instructions can be defined in different BBs, and they > may have several users. Thereby determining where to put those instructions >

Nuno Lopes wrote: > Thanks for your reply! > > > >> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've been scratching my head with a little problem: how to determine the >>> insertion point for a newly created instruction? >>> The operands of these instructions

Sorry, we really screwed up the server migration. Alive is now working again and should be fixed for good :) Permalinks are still missing; we are working on recovering those. Apologies again for all the trouble. Nuno -----Original Message----- From: Sanjay Patel Sent: Monday, October 2, 2017 5:10 PM Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Where did Alive go? I still can't use the web app - spins for

And now rise4fun.com doesn't work at all? ~Craig On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > Alive is now working again. There was a migration to a new server. > Permalinks are still being copied from backup; they will work again > shortly as well. (I would probably not create new ones since they may get > replaced while the copy is in

Craig I know it's a pain compared to the web interface but Alive is pretty easy to install and run from a shell. John On 9/22/17 11:41 AM, Craig Topper via llvm-dev wrote: > And now rise4fun.com <http://rise4fun.com> doesn't work at all? > > ~Craig > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt > <mailto:nunoplopes at

Alive is now working again. There was a migration to a new server. Permalinks are still being copied from backup; they will work again shortly as well. (I would probably not create new ones since they may get replaced while the copy is in flux). Nuno Citando Nuno Lopes via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > I'm investigating; thanks for the heads up. Sorry for the

On Jun 4, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > So here is a new proposal: > > !0 = metadata !{ alloc_siz_fn, offset_fn, parameters* } The parameters are a separate metadata array or the alloc_size metadata is variable length? You'll probably want to write up some docs for the website on how this is supposed to be laid out and work. -eric

Hey Scott, There has been quite a lot of research on capture tracking (aka escape analysis) for Java and other dynamic languages. See e.g.: https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/HotSpot/EscapeAnalysis http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/vm/performance-enhancements-7.html http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=320384.320386 Nuno -----Original Message----- From: Scott Egerton via

We have these transforms from funnel shift to a simpler shift op: // fshl(X, 0, C) -> shl X, C // fshl(X, undef, C) -> shl X, C // fshl(0, X, C) -> lshr X, (BW-C) // fshl(undef, X, C) -> lshr X, (BW-C) These were part of: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54778 In all cases, one operand must be 0 or undef and the shift amount is a constant, so I think these are safe.

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 12:45 PM Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > >On 07/15/2017 04:51 AM, Nuno Lopes wrote: > >>> On 07/14/2017 04:37 PM, Nuno Lopes wrote: > >>>> Thank you all for your replies. > >>>> So here seems to be an agreement that the documentation for > >>>> PartialAlias is incorrect. > >>>>

>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:08 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: >> We can do "add %x, undef" => "undef" because for any value of %x, we can >> always find a value that when added to %x produces any value in the >> domain of integers. >> >> This is not the case with floats since with some inputs, e.g., NaNs, we

Definitely have a look at the current analyses: - llvm/Transforms/IPO/FunctionAttrs.cpp - llvm/Transforms/IPO/InferFunctionAttrs.cpp Also, study the semantics of these attributes, starting with the docs: http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#function-attributes Also, grep the LLVM sources for test cases that use the attributes to see examples on how they are used for optimization. Finally, have a

On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > At least in C/C++ that's UB, yes. So you cannot map every turing machine to a valid C/C++ program then. :) Also, does this mean that "daemon" programs that run continuously till they're killed by the OS (using a mechanism that is not visible in C) are effectively undefined? -- Sanjoy >

Hi, As a follow up of this thread I've made a patch that implements a simple approach to propagate the function return values as described previously. It can transform e.g. the following program: define i32 @f(...) nounwind { (...) %cond = select i1 %tobool, i32 2, i32 3 ; <i32> [#uses=1] ret i32 %cond } define i32 @g(...) nounwind { entry: %call = call i32 (...)* @f() ;

Quoting Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com>: > On Jun 4, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > >> So here is a new proposal: >> >> !0 = metadata !{ alloc_siz_fn, offset_fn, parameters* } > > The parameters are a separate metadata array or the alloc_size metadata > is variable length? Variable length. I think that's

You are right: select in SDAG has to be poison-blocking as well, otherwise the current lowering from IR's select to SDAG's select would be wrong. Which makes the select->or transformation incorrect at SDAG level as well. I guess until recently people believed that poison in SDAG wasn't much of a problem (myself included). I was convinced otherwise with the test cases that

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > (+CC LLVM dev - I'd dropped it in my original reply unintentionally and > just noticed.) > > On 06/07/2016 01:35 PM, Philip Reames wrote: > >> (This was written in a rush. There may be mistakes; if so I'll try to >> correct later.) >> >> At the

For the first part of Sanjay’s question, I think the answer is, “Yes, we can fold all of these to NaN in the general case.” For the second part, which the nnan FMF is present, I’m not sure. The particulars of the semantics of nnan are unclear to me. But let me explore what Eli is saying. It sounds reasonable, but I have a question about it. Suppose we have the nnan FMF set, and we encounter

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:08 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > We can do "add %x, undef" => "undef" because for any value of %x, we can > always find a value that when added to %x produces any value in the domain > of integers. > > This is not the case with floats since with some inputs, e.g., NaNs, we > are not able to produce some