similar to: [LLVMdev] All CallInsts mayHaveSideEffects

Hi, All CallInsts should return true for Instruction::mayHaveSideEffects() because functions are not guaranteed to halt. Inliner::runOnSCC calls isInstructionTriviallyDead to determine whether code can be dead code eliminated. isInstructionTriviallyDead returns true if Instruction::mayHaveSideEffects() returns false. A function that potentially runs forever based on its input but does not write

Hi Nadav, > I almost missed your email because you replied only to the list. I understand your argument. I think that my fix addresses a part of it. It says that instructions that do not return should not be removed. > The current implementation of mayReturn is to check the 'noreturn' function attribute. Are you suggesting to add a new attribute that is called 'mustreturn'

Hi, Is this the right mailing list for sending in diffs by irregular contributers? Should I send diffs directly to the code owner instead? Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas B. Jablin" <tjablin at CS.Princeton.EDU> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 1:55:09 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Thomas B. Jablin <tjablin at cs.princeton.edu> wrote: > Hi, > The call target pass in the poolalloc suite yields an incorrect output for the following short test program: The DSA results are now (r56847) correct for this test case. The call is marked incomplete. Doing better is actually a pathological case in DSA which is hard to fix without

Hi, The call target pass in the poolalloc suite yields an incorrect output for the following short test program: #include <stdio.h> struct OP { void (*func)(struct OP*); }; void bar(struct OP *op); void foo(struct OP *op) { printf("Foo\n"); op->func = bar; } void bar(struct OP *op) { printf("Bar\n"); op->func = foo; } int main(int argc, char **argv)

Hi, I saw that Nick Lewycky removed the LLVM portable hash_map and hash_sets. My research group was relying on those classes. What replaces hash_map and hash_set? The LLVM implementation was very convenient as there is no equivalent in STL, and Microsoft's implementation had a different name, as does the C++ 0X implementation. Thanks. Tom Jablin

Hi Hisham, Most likely the basic blocks are the headers of two different loops. Try running viewCFG() on the function in question to see if this is the case. Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hisham Chowdhury" <hisham_chow at yahoo.com> To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 7:22:00 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [LLVMdev] Loopinfo Analysis

Currently LLVM removes infinite recursion in readnone functions as dead code. I assume this falls under the same language rules that allow removal of infinite loops. But I need to be certain. Can someone confirm? Standard citations welcome. Otherwise this is wrong: bool mayHaveSideEffects() const { return mayWriteToMemory() || mayThrow() || !mayReturn(); } Note: For non-C support, it

Hello, I have a question regrading the analysis pass that generates loop info from an .ll code. My previous understanding was there will be just one loop header(in the loop info) for a particular loop. But, when i use isLoopHeader() member function from the loop info class I get 'true' return value for two different basic blocks. Note both basic blocks are loop conditional block(break

Thanks. I do not have commit privilege. Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Evan Cheng" <evan.cheng at apple.com> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Monday, December 8, 2008 5:39:33 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] MachineCodeEmitter Patch Looks good. Do you have commit privilege? Evan On Nov 22, 2008, at

On 19.03.2016 16:25, Mehdi Amini wrote: > Hi, > > Can you elaborate what is the impact at the IR level? > If the point is just about how you lower for you target, why are you needing an IR level attribute? You backend if free to specialize the lowering for any intrinsic regardless the IR level attributes. As I explained in my reply to Philip, what I really need is a way to get

On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> > wrote: >> >> On Aug 21, 2009, at 7:31 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>>

On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> > wrote: >> >> On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 7:31 PM, Eli

On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:27 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> > wrote: >> >> On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Eli

Hi, The description of the alias method in AliasAnalysis reads: alias - The main low level interface to the alias analysis implementation. Returns a Result indicating whether the two pointers are aliased to each other. This is the interface that must be implemented by specific alias analysis implementations. This implies that alias can run on ANY two Values without restrictions. However, line

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 7:31 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at

LLVM today does not clearly specify if a function specified to not write to memory (i.e. readonly or readnone) is allowed to throw exceptions. LangRef is ambiguous on this issue. The normative statement is "[readnone/readonly functions] cannot unwind exceptions by calling the C++ exception throwing methods" which does not decide an answer for non C++ languages. It used to say (h/t

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at

----- "Evan Cheng" <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > On Sep 16, 2008, at 8:44 AM, Thomas B. Jablin wrote: > > > Evan, > > So, if I understand you correctly, the design you have in mind is > > to: create a PassManager, pass it to the JIT on construction, and > > modify runJITOnFunction to run the second PassManager on the > > Function

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:27 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at