similar to: [LLVMdev] preserving an implicit def between basic blocks

Hello, I have two for loops (one inside the other), that after indvars, looprotate, etc. (the important here is the loop rotate), is similar to this (I've stripped the real operations): define i32 @f() nounwind { entry: br label %bb1 bb1: ; preds = %bb3, %bb1, %entry %i.0.reg2mem.0.ph = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %i.0.reg2mem.0.ph, %bb1 ], [ %indvar.next9, %bb3 ] ;

Hi , I would like to know if a R function have the same behaviour than the matlab solve function. I tried something with uniroot but I have some problems: The equation I need to solve is : exp(c0-r0)*(bb0+x)*(bb1-x)=(bb0+x+1)(bb1-x-1) So I tried this: STEP 1: my function test test <- function(x,bb0=-3,bb1=5,c0=2,r0=0) { + ((exp(c0-r0)*(bb0+x)*(bb1-x))/((bb0+x+1)(bb1-x-1))-1)} STEP 2: >

Dear all, I'm working on an exploratory backend on llvm. In the instruction set I'm using I have an instruction (called DECJNZ) that decrements a register and, if the decremented value is not zero, jumps (with a relative jump) to a given offset. I've described in tablegen this instruction as follow: def DECJNZ : Instruction { let Namespace = "MyTarget"; let

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Michele Scandale <michele.scandale at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > I'm working on an exploratory backend on llvm. In the instruction set I'm using > I have an instruction (called DECJNZ) that decrements a register and, if the > decremented value is not zero, jumps (with a relative jump) to a given offset. > > I've

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear all, I''m a bit confused on the rules and would like your help. I''ve 4 NIC, eth0 --> WAN (net) eth1 --> OSPF1 (bb1) eth2 --> OSPF2 (bb2) I would like to enable all the icmp function (ping and traceroute) Wonder what effect will the following policy make. bb0 all ACCEPT info bb1

Hi, this question might be a bit silly: apart from the language reference(http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#switch-instruction) page, are there additional rules for a regular llvm frontend to generate llvm IRs? There are a few cases that I got from clang/llvm-gcc/dragonegg when compiling *C* source code into llvm IR: 1. It seems that there is ONLY ONE ReturnInst(and NO InvokeInst) for such llvm

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > Thanks for the answers! The plan makes sense to me. > > Regarding phis, what about diamonds, e.g.: > > > define i32 @f(i32 %x) { > br .., label %bb0, label %bb1 > bb0: > %cmp = icmp sge i32 %x, 0 ; x > 0 > br i1 %cmp, label %bb2, label %bb3 > bb1: > %x2 = add nsw

On 10/10/13 10:43 AM, Hongxu Chen wrote: > Hi, this question might be a bit silly: apart from the language > reference(http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#switch-instruction) page, are > there additional rules for a regular llvm frontend to generate llvm IRs? > > There are a few cases that I got from clang/llvm-gcc/dragonegg when > compiling *C* source code into llvm IR: > >

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:06 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 10/10/13 10:43 AM, Hongxu Chen wrote: > >> Hi, this question might be a bit silly: apart from the language >> reference(http://llvm.org/**docs/LangRef.html#switch-**instruction<http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#switch-instruction>) >> page, are >> there additional rules

On 02/25/2015 10:41 AM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: >>> all the zero paths from entry to %a pass by %b. >> >> That is a graph-wise definition, sure. >> So, this is an interesting definition, and maybe this is part of the source >> of the problem. >> >> For SSA, at least GCC requires that both "definition block dominates use >> block" (which

>> all the zero paths from entry to %a pass by %b. > > > That is a graph-wise definition, sure. > So, this is an interesting definition, and maybe this is part of the source > of the problem. > > For SSA, at least GCC requires that both "definition block dominates use > block" (which would be true here), *and* > that "definition appears before use in

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> Date: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Order of Basic Blocks To: Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at googlemail.com> This worked, though the RPO_iterator apparently wasn't what I was looking for anyways, it seems it doesn't rreally go top->down. I have a simple example code,

> Ok, suppose you have the following code: > BB1: > llvm.lifetime.start(%a) > store to %a > llvm.lifetime.end(%a) > br %BB2 > > BB2: > <some code> > br %BB1 > > If you remove the first "llvm.lifetime.start", then when you enter > %BB1 for the second time, your "store to %a" can be considered invalid, > as you've

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 09:27:30 -0800, Devang Patel wrote: > On Nov 9, 2011, at 12:52 AM, cafxx wrote: > >> I was wondering, is there any way to express in the IR that an >> instruction/instruction sequence/basic >> block/region/function/module/whatever is an alternate version of >> another? > > There is not a way to represent --- instruction I1 is an alternative

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Many thanks for working on this! > SSI/e-SSA is the only way I'm aware of for doing efficient sparse > analyses, so I'm definitely in favor of adding support for it in LLVM! > > I read the discussion so far and did a cursory review of the patches, and > I have just a

They cannot be found like the live in values because different values may be live out. For instance the psudocode may look like: BB0: vreg1 = rand() if( vreg1 > .5 ) goto BB1; else goto BB2; BB1: vreg 2 = rand(); EAX = copy vreg2; Return BB2: vreg 3 = rand() * rand()' EAX = copy vreg3; Return On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 7:41 AM, s Last namerc <srcsrc84 at yahoo.com>

Hi All, For various obscure reasons I'd like to detect the condition when X86 CALL instruction immediately precedes a function epilogue in the final emitted code, and insert a NOP between them if that happens. My initial attempt at it looked like this: MachineBasicBlock& MBB; MachineBasicBlock::iterator MBBI; <-- points to where the epilogue would be inserted if (MBBI != MBB.begin()

On 24 February 2015 at 02:05, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > Will try to reply to the larger thread again soon, but a quick reply on a > bit of a tangent... > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >> 2. Should unreachable code be allowed to contain nonsense (like >> instructions that depend on

> On May 11, 2016, at 1:12 PM, Francois Pichet <pichet2000 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > Regarding the problem of debug range for optimized code. > Currently a DEBUG_VALUE will be inserted after the <def>vregX > DEBUG_VALUE are only valid until the end of the current MachineBasicBlock. That's the main problem. > Why not simply iterate over all uses

Hi all, I have a doubt on the usage of phi nodes in LLVM: if I define a value in a bb, are phi nodes needed in the blocks that are dominated by the bb where the value is defined? As an example consider the following trivial example: // BB0 A = 5; if (condition) { // BB1 B = 2; } else { // BB2 B = 1; } // BB3 is a phi node required for A in BB3? b.r., Carlo Alberto Ferraris --------------