similar to: [LLVMdev] suggestion: add a member in llvm::CodeMetrics

According to documentation Twines should be used only for temporary values and not stored, so allocating the in heap sounds wrong. I think all you need here is static int varNum; ++varNum; Instruction *sstatusInst = new AllocaInst(StatusTy, Twine("status") + Twine(varNum), entry_inst); Instruction *sreqInst = new AllocaInst(ReqTy, Twine("request") + Twine(varNum),

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Eugene Toder <eltoder at gmail.com> wrote: > According to documentation Twines should be used only for temporary > values and not stored, so allocating the in heap sounds wrong. Yes, in general you should never be naming Twine directly, except in the case where you need to make a Twine for an integer. All other uses should be considered poor style, as

Hello folks, I want to compile some fortran code to IR, but llvm-gfortran 4.2-2.9 does compile my fortran code. gfortran 4.2.1 fail with the same error. but gfortran 4.4.6 and ifort compiles fine. Attached is the file causing error. Error message is m_List.F90: In function 'exporttostring_': m_List.F90:925: error: conversion to non-scalar type requested I wonder if there any way I can

I need to generate variables like status1, status2, status3, ...... request1, request2, request3, ...... this is my code, other unrelated detail are eliminated. static int varNum; static const char *getVarNum() { ++varNum; std::stringstream ss; ss << varNum; std::string *varname = new std::string(ss.str()); return varname->c_str(); } const char *VarNum = getVarNum(); Twine *x1 = new

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Yuanfang Chen <tabloid.adroit at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello folks, > I want to compile some fortran code to IR, but llvm-gfortran 4.2-2.9 does > compile my fortran code. gfortran 4.2.1 fail with the same error. but > gfortran 4.4.6 and ifort compiles fine. Attached is the file causing > error. Error message is > m_List.F90: In function

ether zhhb wrote: > hi John, > > sorry for reply so late. > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:38 PM, John Criswell <criswell at uiuc.edu > <mailto:criswell at uiuc.edu>> wrote: > > Devang Patel wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 6:41 PM, ether zhhb > <etherzhhb at gmail.com <mailto:etherzhhb at gmail.com>> wrote: > >

hi John, On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:27 PM, John Criswell <criswell at uiuc.edu> wrote: > ether zhhb wrote: > >> hi John, >> >> sorry for reply so late. >> >> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:38 PM, John Criswell <criswell at uiuc.edu<mailto: >> criswell at uiuc.edu>> wrote: >> >> Devang Patel wrote: >> >> On

One thing I want to mention. I believe in the current legacy pass manager implementation only one MachineFunction ever exists at a time. It is deleted before the next MachineFunction is created. This is very important for memory usage. I think the MachineOutliner being in the pipeline may create an exception to this. I think the initial version of retpoline used a ModulePass and that had to be

Hi Kevin, Thanks for your interest and for your deep analysis. Unfortunately, your approach doesn't catch all bugs and is vulnerable to an attack. Consider the following case: ...................... | ----- obj --- | | end ^ ptr ^ ^ end-of-memory The scenario is as follows: - an object is allocated in the last page of the address space - obj is byte

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 6:39 PM Chen, Yuanfang via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Indeed, but there is a distinction about their position in the pipeline. We run opt & codegen pipeline separately, Why, though? Is there a reason why this inherently makes sense, or is it just a historical accident? At least to me it seems that it would make more sense to run all passes

I am investigating changing BoundsChecking to use address-based rather than size- & offset-based tests. To explain, here is a short code sample cribbed from one of the tests: %mem = tail call i8* @calloc(i64 1, i64 %elements) %memobj = bitcast i8* %mem to i64* %ptr = getelementptr inbounds i64* %memobj, i64 %index %4 = load i64* %ptr, align 8 Currently, the IR for bounds checking

Nuno, Inspired by this email thread, I spent a bit of time today looking through the implementation of BoundsChecking::instrument(..). Based on my reading of prior work, it should be possible to do these checks in two comparisons, or possibly even one if the right assumptions could be made. Could you provide a bit of background of the expected domains of Size and Offset? In particular,

> On Jul 15, 2020, at 12:28, Chen, Yuanfang <Yuanfang.Chen at sony.com> wrote: > > In codegen with NPM, I've made all codegen passes (IR or MIR pass) to be only driven by `llc`. Both due to the way NPM registering pass (on-demand&dynamic instead of static initialization in Legacy PM), and reduce the confusion about which tool (`llc` or `opt`) to test codegen IR passes. >

On 05/28/15 15:27, Yuanfang Chen wrote: > #define GET_BIT(lll) \ > // blah blah > > #define G(label1,label2) \ > { \ > // decent amount code \ > ... > while (1) { \ > GET_BIT(label2); \ > }; \ > } > > void f() { > if (..)

I'd just note that not every pass you can run with "opt" is actually part of the optimization pipeline. There are a few important IR-level passes that only run in the codegen pipeline, but are still nameable with opt to run individually for testing purposes. Switching over doesn't need to block on these passes being migrated. So I'm not sure this method of determining

Dear LLVM, Consider two loops with one interation - First with constant lower bound, second with usual non-constant lower bound: int main(int argc, char ** argv) { int numOfIterations= 1; int stride=1; int lowerBound = 1000; - 1st | int lowerBound = argc; - 2nd int upperBound = lowerBound + (numOfIterations - 1)*stride; int i = lowerBound;

On 27.02.2012, at 17:13, Николай Лихогруд wrote: > Dear LLVM, > > Consider two loops with one interation - > First with constant lower bound, second with usual non-constant lower bound: > > int main(int argc, char ** argv) > { > int numOfIterations= 1; > int stride=1; > int lowerBound = 1000; - 1st | int lowerBound =

On 27.02.2012, at 18:49, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Benjamin Kramer > <benny.kra at googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> On 27.02.2012, at 17:13, Николай Лихогруд wrote: >> >>> Dear LLVM, >>> >>> Consider two loops with one interation - >>> First with constant lower bound, second with usual

Well, we are getting somewere...;) >It is probably 'greyed' out because no Windows tools use it or will add it. You will probably need to use Unix tools (ldb or ldap) to remove>them, but you can if you so wish ignore them. What you should never do is to rely on them being there, because they may or may not be there.Ok, I'll let it be there> You need to remove the gidNumber

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at googlemail.com> wrote: > > On 27.02.2012, at 17:13, Николай Лихогруд wrote: > >> Dear LLVM, >> >>     Consider two loops with one interation - >>     First with constant lower bound, second with usual non-constant lower bound: >> >>     int main(int argc, char ** argv) >>     {