similar to: [LLVMdev] Interesting test-suite results

I used LLVM already existent passes with no problems till I tried to use MemDepPrinter.cpp : http://llvm.org/doxygen/MemDepPrinter_8cpp_source.html. I got the following segfault: llvm[0]: Compiling MyMemDepPrinter.cpp for Release+Asserts build (PIC) llvm[0]: Linking Release+Asserts Loadable Module MyMemDepPrinter.so WARNING: You're attempting to print out a bitcode file. This

On Sep 2, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > Please merge the three testcases into one file. We added a new > FileCheck tool which allows you to check for the exact sequence of > instructions expected, which also allows the tests to be merged into > one file. > > +/// MemCpyOpt::pointerIsParameter - returns true iff pointer is a > parameter of > +/// C call

On Sep 2, 2009, at 1:07 AM, Jakub Staszak wrote: > Hello, > > I fixed my patch as you asked. Sorry for the delay, I'd been working > on my SSU patch (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-August/025347.html > ) > > I hope that everything is fine now. Hey Jakub, Thanks for working on this again, one more round :) Please merge the three testcases into one

Howdy, I'm working on writing a dependence analyzer (rather like what LoopDependenceAnalysis wants to be, except a bit more general). While this is a problem of many parts, I'm currently focusing on finding pairs of memory references to test for dependence. Consider this contrived C code: double test2(int n, double *restrict A, double *restrict B, bool flag) { if (flag) { A[0] =

On Apr 25, 2009, at 5:05 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Apr 13, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Anthony Danalis wrote: > >> I'm attaching the .bc file. Note that my analysis pass is invoked >> after "-O1" and that's why the IR I included in the original email >> is optimized. > > Hi Anthony, > > Sorry for the delay, things have been crazy lately. >

Hello all, I am a LLVM newer who want to add a new backend(EBC) into LLVM. After coping the related files from another target and modifying it, I meet a problem when I build the project. The error message is as follows: ================================================================ [ 94%] Built target llvm-dis Linking CXX executable ../../bin/llvm-mc Undefined symbols:

On Apr 13, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Anthony Danalis wrote: > I'm attaching the .bc file. Note that my analysis pass is invoked > after "-O1" and that's why the IR I included in the original email > is optimized. Hi Anthony, Sorry for the delay, things have been crazy lately. The MemDep API assumes that you will call getDependency() first, and then only call

Hi all, First time posting to llvmdev, be gentle :). I'm working on an AliasAnalysis implementation and running into an issue on 2.7, that doesn't exist in 2.6 as far as I can tell. Short version: has anyone been able to load an AliasAnalysis module into 2.7's opt? Longer version: Even with a dummy pass implementation (just returns MayAlias for everything), I'm getting very

Hi developers, I have some problems using a non-default alias analysis. I wrote a modulepass which needs a functionpass. The functionpass needs a type bases alias analysis instead of the basicaa. I added the command line parameter for this analysis to the opt invocation as follows: opt -tbaa -global-live-values test.bc The 'global-live-values' pass preserves all and requires a

Hello all, I am a LLVM newer who want to add a new backend(EBC) into LLVM. After coping the related files from another target and modifying it, I meet a problem when I build the project. The error message is as follows: ================================================================ [ 94%] Built target llvm-dis Linking CXX executable ../../bin/llvm-mc Undefined symbols:

On Dec 14, 2011, at 7:09 AM, David Gardner wrote: > I'm attempting to add some support for hoisting/sinking of memory-using > intrinsics in loops, and so I want to use MemoryDependenceAnalysis in > LICM, but when I modify getAnalysisUsge to include this : > > virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { > AU.setPreservesCFG(); >

I'm attempting to add some support for hoisting/sinking of memory-using intrinsics in loops, and so I want to use MemoryDependenceAnalysis in LICM, but when I modify getAnalysisUsge to include this : virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.setPreservesCFG(); AU.addRequired<DominatorTree>(); AU.addRequired<LoopInfo>();

IR: define i32 @calloc_strlen_write_between() { %call = tail call noalias i8* @calloc(i32 10, i32 1) store i8 97, i8* %call, align 1 %call1 = tail call i32 @strlen(i8* %call) ret i32 %call1 } static bool eliminateStrlen(CallInst *CI, BasicBlock::iterator &BBI, AliasAnalysis *AA, MemoryDependenceResults *MD, const DataLayout &DL, const TargetLibraryInfo *TLI,

Hello everyone ! I am trying to determine for certain Load instructions from my pass their corresponding Alloca instructions (that can be in other previous blocks). The chain can be something like : `TargetLoad(var) -> other stores/loads that use var (or dependencies on var) -> alloca(var).` , linked on several basic blocks. Do you know how can I do it? I tried to use the methods from

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Anthony Danalis <adanalis at eecs.utk.edu> wrote: > How can I use MemoryDependenceAnalysis (or any other analysis for that > matter) to gather that the instructions > j = N/2  (store i32 %11, i32* %j, align 4) > and > N = N+7  (store i32 %12, i32* %n, align 4) > are the ones that define the parameters "j" and "N"

On Apr 13, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Anthony Danalis <adanalis at eecs.utk.edu > > wrote: >> How can I use MemoryDependenceAnalysis (or any other analysis for >> that >> matter) to gather that the instructions >> j = N/2 (store i32 %11, i32* %j, align 4) >> and >> N = N+7 (store i32 %12, i32* %n,

Yeah, sorry for that. Better "It compiles ok (but maybe incorrect code)", not "It works" as I wrote. 2018-05-23 1:08 GMT+02:00 Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org>: > You might want to look more carefully at how you're constructing the > MemoryLocation. The first argument is a pointer, and the second argument > is the number of bytes pointed to by

Sorry, I misunderstood the question. The difference between a load and a read-only call is that load can be used as the value of the memory location. E.g. DeadStoreElimination pass removes a store that stores a just loaded value back into the same location. To do this it checks if the stored value is the value of load. Read-only call cannot be used like this. This being said, I don't know if

On Jan 19, 2009, at 5:06 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Monday 19 January 2009 18:21, Dan Gohman wrote: > >>> Dan, how does the scheduler handle memory dependence? I'm working >>> on >>> something that requires memory dependence information for >>> MachineInstructions. >> >> At the moment, it knows simple things, like constant pool loads

Hi, I'm having a problem with GVN removing a load instruction that I think is needed. Dump before GVN: *** IR Dump Before Global Value Numbering *** ; Function Attrs: minsize optsize define i16 @TEST__MAIN(i16 %argc.13.par, i16** %argv.14.par) #0 { %buf.17 = alloca [10 x i16], align 1 %_tmp30 = getelementptr inbounds [10 x i16], [10 x i16]* %buf.17, i16 0, i16 0, !dbg !22 call