similar to: [LLVMdev] string constant propagation

Chris, one way to look at array bounds check optimization, and the value range propagation that it can be based on, is that it's usefulness is language dependent. Ada and Java benefit from it greatly, C/C++ not at all, but then a "codesafe" version of C/C++ would, as John T was pointing out below. It seems like the software engineering modularity of llvm's

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > the big problem with Patterson's VRP is that it is expensive in terms of > compile time.  LLVM used to have some passes (ABCD, predsimplify) that did > this kind of thing, but they were removed essentially because their compile > time was too great for the goodness they brought. Any reason not to

Hi Seb, > I'm writting following LLVM assembly: > > ; ModuleID = 'structaccess.ll' > not having a data layout string in your module disables many optimizations. Ciao, Duncan. > %struct._anon0 = type <{ i32, i32, i32 }> > > @s = common global %struct._anon0 zeroinitializer > > define arm_aapcscc void @foo() nounwind { > L.entry: > store i32

Hi Andrey, > On 21.02.2011 20:27, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote: >> My work is not part of the LLVM mainline yet. But I would be happy to >> contribute with the code of my range analysis implementation if it can help >> you in something else. > We were thinking of adding VRP to LLVM too, though we were mostly > interested in Patterson's approach (i.e. not

Hi all, I'm writting following LLVM assembly: ; ModuleID = 'structaccess.ll' %struct._anon0 = type <{ i32, i32, i32 }> @s = common global %struct._anon0 zeroinitializer define arm_aapcscc void @foo() nounwind { L.entry: store i32 5, i32* getelementptr inbounds (%struct._anon0* @s, i32 0, i32 0) store i32 10, i32* getelementptr inbounds (%struct._anon0* @s, i32 0, i32 1)

Hi Duncan, What do you mean by "a data layout string in your module" ? Best Regards Seb 2011/10/18 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> > Hi Seb, > > > I'm writting following LLVM assembly: > > > > ; ModuleID = 'structaccess.ll' > > > > not having a data layout string in your module disables many optimizations. > > Ciao,

Hi, I used the following commands on the program attached below: llvm-gcc --emit-llvm main.c -c -o main.bc opt -ipconstprop main.bc -o main1.bc diff main.bc main1.bc no difference was o/p :( The Program Segment is as shown below: #include <stdio.h> void f1(int a) { a=a+1; printf("%d",a); } void f2() { int b; b=1; f1(b); } int main() { int

Hi, I am searching for the equivalent of the function Index from SAS. In SAS: index("abcd", "bcd") will return 2 because bcd is located in the 2nd cell of the abcd string. The equivalent in R should do this: > myIndex <- foo("abcd", "bcd") #return 2. What is the function that I am looking for? I want to use the return value in substr, like I do

On 5/17/2018 4:04 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Dávid Bolvanský via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I was thinking about a new possible simplification in InstCombine which >> would transform code like this: >> >> const char * NAME = "Prog"; >> >> void

My question was supposed to have been (I had plot() instead of text()!) I have e. g. > txt <- "abcd" In > text(x,y, expression(sqrt(txt))) I want txt to be evaluated, i. e. to get sqrt(abcd) plotted, (with the square root symbol replacing sqrt, of course). Is there a way to achieve this? Berwin Turlach provided the following: > txt <- "abcd"

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Dávid Bolvanský via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello, > > I was thinking about a new possible simplification in InstCombine which > would transform code like this: > > const char * NAME = "Prog"; > > void printer(char **arr, int len) { > for (int i = 0; i < len; ++i) { > printf("%s:

Hi, I have the C program below, which contains a mathematical expression. C code: ====== void ControlledRotationPiMinus(int target, int control, int j) { ControlledPhase(target,control,-PI/(2*pow(2,j))); } int main() { .. int b = 3; for (int j=1; j < b; j++) ControlledRotationPiMinus(target, control, j); .. } Here is what I am doing: The function ControlledRotationPiMinus is called

Hi, I want to see the output of a InterProcedural Constant Propagation Pass IPCP in llvm. I have llvm 2.8 installed.And i used opt -print-after-all command to see the .bc output generated after each pass. However,this does not include dump produced by IPCP :( why? Kindly tell me how to view dump produced by IPCP. P.S: i have tried opt -ipcp src.bc -o src1.bc However the src.bc and src1.bc both

Hi all, I run opt -O2 -debug-pass=Structure and I looked at the passes used.Is there a reason why O2 is not using the constant propagation pass? Thank you in advance, Niko -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131122/5020e4f6/attachment.html>

Hello, I was thinking about a new possible simplification in InstCombine which would transform code like this: const char * NAME = "Prog"; void printer(char **arr, int len) { for (int i = 0; i < len; ++i) { printf("%s: %s", NAME, arr[i]); } } into void printer(char **arr, int len) { for (int i = 0; i < len; ++i) { printf("Prog: %s", arr[i]);

Hi Yunming, On 28/03/13 03:15, yunming zhang wrote: > Hi, > > I just started working with llvm, I am trying to test and improve the constant > propagation pass (-constprop), > > I have two main questions, > > 1. I wrote my own test file, which has something like > int a = 1 > int b = a + 2; > int c = b + 3; > print c > > However, non

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Martin Apel <martin.apel at simpack.de> wrote: > Hi all, > > I stumbled across a peculiarity regarding constant propagation that I don't understand. I'm not sure, if I oversee anything or if it's a missing feature. > > I have created the following simple test function in C: > > int times_zero(int a) > { >  return (a *

Ha here is what I was missing. Thanks Jon. It still seems to me that the transformation of LLVM IR is invalid is that right? I assume we shouldn't be converting APFloat to float in order to avoid such problems? -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Roelofs [mailto:jonathan at codesourcery.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 9:39 AM To: Raoux, Thomas F; LLVM Developers Mailing List

Hi, I just started working with llvm, I am trying to test and improve the constant propagation pass (-constprop), I have two main questions, 1. I wrote my own test file, which has something like int a = 1 int b = a + 2; int c = b + 3; print c However, non of the instruction was killed according to -stat. I think it might due to the fact the llvm instructions generated was a bit

Hello, I have some code which I was hoping the LLVM optimization passes would get rid of for me, but no such luck -- all the code does is store four float 0.f to memory, load four other floats from memory, load back the first four floats, multiply them together (here we should have always get 0) and finally store them back to memory. Any ideas why this isn't picked up by the constant