similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM:help

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 400 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] LLVM:help"

2010 Jun 25
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM:help
On 25/06/10 06:05, RAJWINDER SINGH wrote: > How can I get list of its predecessor basic blocks from a basic block? If BB is a BasicBlock*, you can get begin and end iterators using pred_begin(BB) and pred_end(BB). Ciao, Duncan.
2010 Jun 23
4
[LLVMdev] LLVM:help
Sir ,how can I get the variable %2 in instruction %2 = sub nsw i32 1, %y If I am using getName() function then it outputs the null string. How can I get the original name? Regards, Rajwinder Singh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100623/37038c90/attachment.html>
2008 Jan 02
2
[LLVMdev] immediate predecessors
hi, how to get the number of immediate predecessors for each basic block (arguements of remarks statement at the beginning of the basic block) thank you aditya ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
2011 Jan 31
3
[LLVMdev] How to convert an iterator to an object pointer
I have a pointer to a basic block and am iterating thru its predecessor blocks. I want to get a pointer to the predecessor block. How do I do it. I am using following code and it given compile time errors. error: cannot convert 'llvm::const_pred_iterator' to 'const llvm::BasicBlock*' in initialization const BasicBlock *b = PH->getParent(); // process all pred block
2011 Oct 14
0
[LLVMdev] BasicBlock succ iterator
Hi I have checked all blocks, each block have a Terminator instruction and each blocks belongs to a function. I'm really confused. I guess the problem is caused by the removal of the Loop,The code is as follows: * //every block to header (except the ones in the loop), will now redirect to newblock for (pred_iterator PI = pred_begin(header); PI != pred_end(header); ++PI) {
2011 Feb 01
3
[LLVMdev] Loop simplification
On Feb 1, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > On Feb 1, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Andrew Clinton wrote: > >> I have a (non-entry) basic block that contains only PHI nodes and an >> unconditional branch (that does not branch to itself). Is it always >> possible to merge this block with it's successor and produce a >> semantically equivalent program? I'm
2007 Dec 20
4
[LLVMdev] First time!
Hi! I want to know How to count the number of predecessors for each basic block? Thank You ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
2010 Jun 28
2
[LLVMdev] help
%0 = icmp eq i32 %y, 0 In the above instruction how can i know that the comparison is equality comparison?? --Rajwinder Singh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100628/8d8e5cb1/attachment.html>
2011 Feb 01
0
[LLVMdev] Loop simplification
Here's what I've got so far - it seems to work, aside from the fact that DeleteDeadPHIs is not removing at least one dead PHI in my test program. --------------------- static bool mergeBlockIntoSuccessor(BasicBlock *pred, BasicBlock *succ) { if (succ == pred) return false; if (pred->getFirstNonPHI() != pred->getTerminator()) return false; //
2011 Oct 13
6
[LLVMdev] BasicBlock succ iterator
Hi, All I want to implement DSWP Which is used for parallelization of loops. For this purpose, the loop was replaced with a new basic block in main function. And new functions were created and basic blocks of Loop assigned to them.I have checked blocks and branches for Succ and Pred relation and I have not found any problems. However I get the following error: * **opt:
2017 May 01
3
RFC: Stop using redundant PHI node entries for multi-edge predecessors
Today, the IR requires that if you have multiple edges from A to B (typically with a switch) any phi nodes in B must have an equal number of entries for A, but that all of them must have the same value. This seems rather annoying.... 1) It creates multiple uses of values in A for no apparently good reason 2) It makes updating PHI nodes using sets of predecessors incredibly hard 3) There is no
2008 Jan 22
3
[LLVMdev] Walking all the predecessors for a basic block
Hi all, Is there a way to walk through ALL the predecessors of a basic block in a CFG. I tried to iterate over the preds using this method for (pred_iterator PI = pred_begin(BB), E = pred_end(BB); PI != E; ++I) { BasicBlock *PredBB = *PI; } but this only gives the immediate predecessors for a basic block. For example, in this sample control flow graph. entry -> bb1 -> bb2 -> bb4
2018 Aug 15
2
Queries Regarding Usage of PGOInstrumentation Passes instead of Deprecated ProfileInfo
Hey all, I have a piece of code (written in LLVM 2.8) which uses profiling results produced by ProfileInfo. It essentially computes the number of iterations performed by a loop from the profiling information available. The code snippet in my pass looks something like this. BasicBlock *header = loop->getHeader(); ProfileInfo &pi = getAnalysis< ProfileInfo >(); for(pred_iterator
2010 Jul 18
2
[LLVMdev] help
Can anyone tell me, In the following instruction %"struct.std::locale::facet" = type { i32 (...)**, i32 } what does i32 (...)** means? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100718/3f9fe5fe/attachment.html>
2019 Oct 30
2
How to make ScalarEvolution recompute SCEV values?
Hello all, I’m pretty new to LLVM. I'm writing a pass for loop optimization. I clone and rearrange loops, setting the cloned loop as the original loop’s parent. This can be done multiple times, until there is no more work to do. The trouble is, after the first time I do this, the cloned loop's SCEVs become unknown types when they should be AddRecExpr. If I re-run the whole pass on the
2017 May 01
4
RFC: Stop using redundant PHI node entries for multi-edge predecessors
Hi, On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Today, the IR requires that if you have multiple edges from A to B >> (typically with a switch) any phi nodes in B must have an equal number of >> entries for A, but that all of them must have the same value. > >> This seems rather annoying.... >> 1) It
2018 Aug 15
3
Queries Regarding Usage of PGOInstrumentation Passes instead of Deprecated ProfileInfo
Thank you so much for your response. On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 7:36 AM Malhar Thakkar via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> I have a piece of code (written in LLVM 2.8) which uses profiling results >> produced by ProfileInfo.
2010 May 04
2
[LLVMdev] Question about GVN
Hello, I was investigating GVN.cpp file and I found suspicious part: 1587 bool NeedToSplitEdges = false; 1588 for (pred_iterator PI = pred_begin(LoadBB), E = pred_end(LoadBB); 1589 PI != E; ++PI) { 1590 BasicBlock *Pred = *PI; 1591 if (IsValueFullyAvailableInBlock(Pred, FullyAvailableBlocks)) { 1592 continue; 1593 } 1594 PredLoads[Pred] = 0; 1595 1596 if
2011 Jan 31
0
[LLVMdev] How to convert an iterator to an object pointer
Hi Surinder, You'll need to dereference your iterator to get a pointer: const BasicBlock *p = *pr; Cheers, Lang. On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Surinder <surifilms at gmail.com> wrote: > I have a pointer to a basic block and am iterating thru its > predecessor blocks. I want to get a pointer to the predecessor block. > How do I do it. I am using following code and it
2008 May 14
1
[LLVMdev] Useless check in TailDuplication
Hi, while reading the TailDuplication pass, I found a check that looks rather pointless. TailDuplication looks at an unconditional branch instruction, BI. It performs a number of checks on the successor of this branch instruction, Dest. One of this checks is counting the number of predecessor. If this count is zero, Dest is regarded as dead and no tail duplication happens. However, as far as I