similar to: [LLVMdev] Separate loop condition and loop body

On May 10, 2010, at 8:43 AM, Xinfinity wrote: > Is it possible to get the list of BasicBlocks building the condition > of a > loop and the list of BasicBlocks that form the body? Based on my (limited) experience with Loop and LoopInfo, this isn't possible. (But don't take my word for it.) > My aim is to manipulate for loops, while and do-while loops unitary, > but I

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Trevor Harmon <Trevor.W.Harmon at nasa.gov> wrote: > On May 10, 2010, at 8:43 AM, Xinfinity wrote: > >> Is it possible to get the list of BasicBlocks building the condition >> of a loop and the list of BasicBlocks that form the body? > > Based on my (limited) experience with Loop and LoopInfo, this isn't > possible. (But

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:32:06PM -0700, Trevor Harmon wrote: > On May 10, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Benoit Boissinot wrote: > > >To me it looks like any basic block from the loop body with a > >successor not in the loop body is a BB "building the condition" (an > >"exit" block). > > I assume you mean "any basic block from the loop header".

On May 10, 2010, at 11:05 AM, Trevor Harmon wrote: >>> To me it looks like any basic block from the loop body with a >>> successor not in the loop body is a BB "building the condition" (an >>> "exit" block). >> >> I assume you mean "any basic block from the loop header". > > No really, loop body. In that case, what does

On May 10, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Benoit Boissinot wrote: > To me it looks like any basic block from the loop body with a > successor not in the loop body is a BB "building the condition" (an > "exit" block). I assume you mean "any basic block from the loop header". I don't think your rule will work. Consider this counterexample: while (j < 10

>>> To me it looks like any basic block from the loop body with a >>> successor not in the loop body is a BB "building the condition" (an >>> "exit" block). >> Consider break statements (CFG attached): while (j < 10 && j > 5 && j % 2 == 0) { j++; if (j == 9) break; } In this example, block

Hello, I have a problem trying to create an inline asm that checks one condition and based on the result of the condition it should jump to one BasicBlock or to another. My question is: is this possible in LLVM, from the inline asm to jump out, to the LLVM code, and if it is, how can I pass the label to which the code should jump. I tried passing the address of the BasicBlocks, using

Hi, all, Does anybody got the most general expression of a unitary matrix? I found one in the book, four entries of the matrix are: (cos\theta) exp(j\alpha); -(sin\theta)exp(j(\alpha-\Omega)); (sin\theta)exp(j(\beta+\Omega)); (cos\theta) exp(j\beta); where "j" is for complex. However, since for any two unitary matrices, their product should also be a unitary matrix. When I

Hello LLVM, I am working on some passes that perform code transformations. Since I am interested in performance, I apply the O3 passes, right after my pass. However, the optimization passes modify the code inserted by my pass in an undesirable way. As far I know, there is no way to prevent the optimizers from optimizing some regions of code. So what I intend to do is to attach metadata to the

Hello, I upgraded to llvm 2.8 and when I generate *.ll files from C/C++ with clang -S -emit-llvm I obtain a *.ll file in which instructions and basicblocks have no names. I tried as well compiling with the -g option, but no names were given. In the release notes it is indicated to use "--show-annotations" to print the number of uses. Is there something similar for assigning names to

Hi, The -dot-cfg option of opt will write a diagram of an analyzed function's CFG to DOT format. If you then open the DOT file, you will see that the BasicBlocks are uniquely identified with hexadecimal addresses. For example, an edge from one block to another may look like: Node0x10026b0:s0 -> Node0x1004c20; I've been trying to figure out where these hexadecimal addresses

Xinfinity wrote: > > > Hello LLVM, > > I am working on some passes that perform code transformations. Since I am > interested in performance, I apply the O3 passes, right after my pass. > However, the optimization passes modify the code inserted by my pass in an > undesirable way. As far I know, there is no way to prevent the optimizers > from optimizing some regions of

On Mar 25, 2010, at 5:23 PM, me22 wrote: > Given that LLVM is already managing the memory and presumably will do > so for the life of your graph processing, could you just use a > boost::directed_graph<llvm::BasicBlock*> instead? Yeah, that was one of the first things I tried: for (Function::iterator i = function.begin(), e = function.end(); i != e; ++i) { BasicBlock

Hi, LLVM provides basic graph traversal for its CFGs, but I need additional operations, such as iterating over the edges. I thought I would solve this problem using the Boost graph library. It should be relatively simple to walk an LLVM CFG and add the BasicBlock objects to a Boost graph declared as: typedef boost::directed_graph<llvm::BasicBlock> Graph; Once constructed, this

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Trevor Harmon wrote: >> I'm writing a pass that does some static analysis on C code. A >> critical requirement of the pass is that it must preserve not only the >> correctness of the code but also its timing -- It cannot add or remove >> even one CPU

I have found a regression model, and i would like to predict value in different points. I have tried to use predict function but it doesn't work. I have used predict function like this: newdata<-seq(from=0.1, to=0.32,by=0.02) data<-predict(fm,newdata) where fm is a regression model. The predict function return me that: Error in eval(predvars, data, env) : numeric argument

On Feb 8, 2010, at 8:51 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > this can be done using debug info. Check out > http://llvm.org/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html Wow, that threw me for a loop. I'm using the 2.6 release, thinking I was up to date, but its debug output doesn't look anything like what's described in the above link. It appears to document the upcoming 2.7 version, which

Hello I'm wandring to know how many times a block is executed inside a loop ? knowing that I can't use getSmallConstantTripCount() because the number is unkown "for (i=0;i<N;i++) for example" I'm using a Function pass for (Function::iterator BB = F.begin(), E = F.end(); BB != E; ++BB) { if (Loop *L = LI->getLoopFor(BB)) { if (L->getHeader() ==

On Feb 9, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Trevor Harmon wrote: > Is there any information about these changes and why they were > necessary? I think I found it: http://nondot.org/~sabre/LLVMNotes/EmbeddedMetadata.txt Still looking for an API to access the metadata... Trevor

Hi, I'm writing a pass that does some static analysis on C code. A critical requirement of the pass is that it must preserve not only the correctness of the code but also its timing -- It cannot add or remove even one CPU cycle from the resulting machine code. To put it another way, the binary executable that is produced when the pass is present must be identical to what is produced