similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVMdev Digest, Vol 80, Issue 37-Help to unsubscribe

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 10000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] LLVMdev Digest, Vol 80, Issue 37-Help to unsubscribe"

2011 Feb 22
0
[LLVMdev] still failed to build the llbrowse on Debian5-32b-llvm2.8
OK try it now - I checked in a few more fixes. On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote: > I still can't build LLBrowse on my Debian5-i386 machine today, > The following is a full build console output. > I am using LLVM-2.8 release build, with needed wxWidgets and CMake. > > Thank you > > Chuck > > sideshow.eecg>time
2011 Feb 22
2
[LLVMdev] still failed to build the llbrowse on Debian5-32b-llvm2.8
I still can't build LLBrowse on my Debian5-i386 machine today, The following is a full build console output. I am using LLVM-2.8 release build, with needed wxWidgets and CMake. Thank you Chuck sideshow.eecg>time cmake ../llbrowse -- The C compiler identification is GNU -- The CXX compiler identification is GNU -- Check for working C compiler: /steffan/a/a0/czhao/bin/bin32/gcc -- Check
2011 Feb 22
0
[LLVMdev] Clone a function and change signature
On 2/22/11 1:31 PM, Arushi Aggarwal wrote: > Hi, > > I want to clone a given function, and add an argument to it. I then > want to add a call to that new function. I have a callInstruction CI, > which I want to transform to call this new function, and to take a new > argument. If I understand correctly, you're cloning the function first and then adding a new argument to
2011 Feb 22
2
[LLVMdev] Clone a function and change signature
Hi, I want to clone a given function, and add an argument to it. I then want to add a call to that new function. I have a callInstruction CI, which I want to transform to call this new function, and to take a new argument. The code I added was as follows CI->getCalledFunction()->dump(); Function* DirectF = CloneFunction(CI->getCalledFunction());
2011 Feb 21
0
[LLVMdev] Looking for more LLBrowse testers / users
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > LLBrowse - a GUI tool which allows you to inspect the contents of LLVM > modules - now runs on Linux and OS X, and it works with both LLVM 2.8 and > current LLVM head. I've updated the docs to include instructions on checking > out and building the code under several different environments, which you
2011 Feb 19
4
[LLVMdev] Looking for more LLBrowse testers / users
LLBrowse - a GUI tool which allows you to inspect the contents of LLVM modules - now runs on Linux and OS X, and it works with both LLVM 2.8 and current LLVM head. I've updated the docs to include instructions on checking out and building the code under several different environments, which you can read here: http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llbrowse/trunk/doc/LLBrowse.html (the doc also
2011 Feb 14
0
[LLVMdev] Introducing LLBrowse: A graphical browser for LLVM modules
On 2011-02-14 20:58, Török Edwin wrote: > On 2011-02-14 20:39, Talin wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org >> <mailto:rengolin at systemcall.org>> wrote: >> >> I think this deserves a blog post... >> >> I'd like to wait until I get some feedback - I don't know yet if
2011 Feb 14
0
[LLVMdev] Introducing LLBrowse: A graphical browser for LLVM modules
Oh, and I updated the MIME types on the docs, so now you can read them online here: http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llbrowse/trunk/doc/LLBrowse.html 2011/2/14 Talin <viridia at gmail.com> > OK I figured out what the problem was - I assume you are trying to compile > under Snow Leopard? There is a problem with linking against wxWidgets > because the prebuilt binaries for
2011 Feb 14
5
[LLVMdev] Introducing LLBrowse: A graphical browser for LLVM modules
OK I figured out what the problem was - I assume you are trying to compile under Snow Leopard? There is a problem with linking against wxWidgets because the prebuilt binaries for wxWidgets are compiled in 32-bit mode, and the default compilation mode in Snow Leopard is 64 bits. See this article for an explanation: http://wiki.wxwidgets.org/Development:_wxMac#Building_under_10.6_Snow_Leopard
2010 Aug 15
0
[LLVMdev] a LICM bug (in LLVM-2.7)?
I don't think licm looks at loads/stores to allocas -- these are usually handled by mem2reg which happens much earlier (if you run your example with -mem2reg you'll see it already deleted the store). In fact, licm sinks the stores by converting them to stores to allocas first and running mem2reg on that. If you change your example to void testLICM(int* restrict p) { int i,N=100;
2011 Feb 14
3
[LLVMdev] Introducing LLBrowse: A graphical browser for LLVM modules
On 2011-02-14 20:39, Talin wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org > <mailto:rengolin at systemcall.org>> wrote: > > I think this deserves a blog post... > > I'd like to wait until I get some feedback - I don't know yet if anyone > is having trouble building or running the thing... Hi Talin,
2011 Aug 21
1
[LLVMdev] Clang + SAFECode Release Announcement
Hi, My apologies for the trouble. I've disabled building DynamicTypeChecks for now (r138224) and now it builds cleanly on 32bit for me here. As for SAFECode support for 32bit vs 64bit, I believe 32bit should work just fine although I haven't personally tested this. Let me know if you have any further issues/questions. ~Will On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at
2010 Jul 27
2
[LLVMdev] inline callsites whose function definitions are in different file?
On 7/27/2010 12:40 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Chuck Zhao<czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote: >> LLVM (2.7 release version) provides 2 implementations for inlining >> function callsites: >> >> - InlineSimple.cpp (-inline): inline simple callsites >> according to its cost analysis >> - InlineAlways.cpp
2010 Jul 27
0
[LLVMdev] inline callsites whose function definitions are in different file?
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote: > I don't, and the compiler doesn't neither, that is the problem, unless I do > hacking at compile time. > E.g.: > - put all such function's definitions into file1.c > - force to compile file1.c 1st. > - when compiling file2.c: >  . read file1.bc >  . attach to file2's
2011 Jan 06
0
[LLVMdev] What are all the LLVM IRs that will write into memory?
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote: > LLVMers, > > I need to intercept all LLVM IR instructions that will write into memory and > start to do analysis on these instructions. ... > Does that mean any LLVM IR that has a valid result field will be able to > store the result into memory? Yes, if the value ends up getting spilled to the
2010 Jul 27
0
[LLVMdev] inline callsites whose function definitions are in different file?
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote: >  LLVM (2.7 release version) provides 2 implementations for inlining > function callsites: > > - InlineSimple.cpp (-inline):               inline simple callsites > according to its cost analysis > - InlineAlways.cpp (-always-inline):  inline all callsites that are > marked with
2018 Feb 26
0
problem with moveSpillUsesAfterCoroBegin
Here's what this function is supposed to do: // Move early uses of spilled variable after CoroBegin. // For example, if a parameter had address taken, we may end up with the code // like: // define @f(i32 %n) { // %n.addr = alloca i32 // store %n, %n.addr // ... // call @coro.begin // we need to move the store after coro.begin in the
2015 Aug 07
2
load instruction erroneously removed by GVN
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
2010 Jun 02
3
[LLVMdev] can't run the Hello Pass: either not registered or registered multiple times, what is the problem?
I am trying to run the HELLO LLVM Pass under WinXP/MinGW, by following the precise steps available at http://www.llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html. The pass failed to run, giving me the following error: opt -load Release/lib/Hello.dll -hello < ./hello.bc > /dev/null opt.exe: Unknown command line argument '-hello'. Try: 'C:\MSYS\opt\llvm-2.7\bin\opt.exe -help' make:
2010 Aug 15
2
[LLVMdev] a LICM bug (in LLVM-2.7)?
I am studying the Transform/Scalar/LICM.cpp pass, and wrote a simple test program to validate. void testLICM(void){ int i,N=100; int data; for(i=0;i<N;i++){ data = 1; printf("i: %d\n",i); } printf("data: %d\n", data); } I expect the "data=1" will be moved out of loop (either hoist or sink). However, to my surprise, that statement