similar to: [LLVMdev] Live values detection in LLVM

Hi, I tried to use the LiveValues pass without success. I did exactly as you wrote me but no luck for me. I am getting this error : [rotem at localhost ~]$ opt -load /home/rotem/Desktop/install/Release/lib/BBPass.so -BBPass < /home/rotem/Desktop/tmp/BBtry.bc > /dev/null Error opening '/home/rotem/Desktop/install/Release/lib/BBPass.so':

Hi, I need the Instructions live out, so i will be able to run my pass. One option that i already discussed is to compute it myself. Second option, use the LiveValues Pass(include/llvm/Analysis/LiveValues). This questions are on the LiveValues pass: Do i need to set the "LiveValues" pass in the PassManager as a prerequisite? if so how do i get the results ?How do i get/use the results

On Jun 2, 2009, at 5:54 AM, Rotem Varon wrote: > > This questions are on the LiveValues pass: > Do i need to set the "LiveValues" pass in the PassManager as a > prerequisite? if so how do i get the results ? Yes; it's a standard analysis pass. See http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html for information about interactions between passes. > How do i get/use the

The pass you're referring to is in include/llvm/Analysis/LiveValues.h and lib/Analysis/LiveValues.cpp. It computes conservative approximations for specific liveness queries, rather than full livein/liveout information. It's intended to be used as a heuristic. Dan On May 30, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Evan Cheng wrote: > I believe Dan has added a pass to compute livein / liveout values. >

I've read that LiveValues has been removed from trunk. Did it bitrot or was simply removed because a replacement is available? If it's the former, what caused the bitrotting? If it's the latter, what's the replacement? (I've found LiveVariables but I'm not sure it can be used in a ModulePass). b.r. -- Carlo Alberto Ferraris <cafxx at strayorange.com <mailto:cafxx

LiveVariables is the optimized and tested way to get variable liveness information (it's used by register allocation). Unfortunately it requires a MachineFunction to work - so you'll either need to lower to one of the built-in targets or add your own target to acquire access to this pass. Andrew On 03/31/2011 12:28 PM, Carlo Alberto Ferraris wrote: > I've read that LiveValues

Hello all Currently I want to use the accurate liveness information when writing a *target independent* FunctionPass based on LLVM. The one I can find is LiveValues, a FunctionPass. But it doesn't use classic dataflow equation and can only provide approximate and conservative result. The another one is LiveVariables which use classic data flow equation, but it comes from Clang's analysis

I believe Dan has added a pass to compute livein / liveout values. Evan Sent from my iPhone On May 30, 2009, at 5:03 AM, Rotem Varon <varonrotem at gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you. > > Is it possible to determine the liveout of the operands (see example > bellow) ? > > %5 = add i32 %4, %3 > > For '%5': i can simply use "

Thank you. Is it possible to determine the liveout of the operands (see example bellow) ? %5 = add i32 %4, %3 For '%5': i can simply use " i->isUsedOutsideOfBlock() " For '%3' and '%4' : this is the question ... >From your answer, is it possible to determine *which* value is liveout ( in binary instruction)? On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 2:57 AM,

" All of these answers are things you would do for an individual LLVM "Value". " I am sorry, but may be i am missing something here. In the previous email you suggested the function "bool isLiveOut(Instruction* I) ". So, if you please, explain how i can find out if a llvm::Value (not an llvm::Instruction) is live out or not. As i understand it, isLiveOut can help me

Was... Bash$ puppet node create This "create" action no longer exists. Has it been depreciated? Is the only way to create a node through puppetmaser now? Thanks, D -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/g3lJoO-j_u4J. To post

I'm wondering if there are any tools available to help with register allocation directly on the LLVM IR. I'm looking for something like "reg2mem" but that will also allocate registers to all SSA values, and that will attempt to both coalesce non-conflicting memory and minimize the amount of copying due to PHI nodes. Currently I've started working with LiveValues and a

Hello, I am interested to to know live variables at LLVM IR. There is LiveVariables implementation but it requires a MachineFunction to work. There used to be LiveValues implementation which was LLVM IR Value liveness analysis pass, but it has been removed from the trunk back in 2011. Is there any replacement to get liveness information for LLVM IR Values that could work on Module or function

Mmm, sorry, the patch I posted crashes if ExitBr is null (which it may be ...) , this one should be ok (and passess all the ScalarEvolution tests in LLVM): diff --git a/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp b/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp index daf7742..b10fab2 100644 --- a/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp +++ b/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp @@ -4293,9 +4293,15 @@

Your patch should include a testcase, see test/Analysis/ScalarEvolution for examples. "BranchInst* " should be "BranchInst *". You should have spaces after the // in your comments. One of the comment lines isn't indented properly. Nick On 8 February 2012 12:05, Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com> wrote: > Attached > > 2012/2/8 Marcello Maggioni

<style id="sinamailpaperfilter">.sinamailpaper-0{cursor:text;}.sinamailpaper-0 td,.sinamailpaper-0 textarea,.sinamailpaper-0 input,.sinamailpaper-0 br,.sinamailpaper-0 div,.sinamailpaper-0 span{font-size:14px;font-family:"宋体",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:1.5;}.sinamailpaper-0 p{/**margin:0.2em auto;*/margin:0px;}.sinamailpaper-0

On 8 February 2012 15:50, Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com> wrote: > Well, it wasn't intended as a "real" patch to be included , but more > as a "proof of concept" for a solution. Do you think it is a valid > solution and I'm correct in my assumption? If so then I'll clean up > the patch and attach a testcase for inclusion. > I'm

This is instead a very simple (handmade) test case that triggers the problem (attached) Also a more conforming patch has been attached 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > This is the .ll for that graph (attached). I think I understand what > you are saying. > This particular testcase returns CNC not because the exit block > doesn't have a unique predecessor,

FInally I had the time to complete everything up. Now I included the test case in the patch and the testcase runs with the LLVM tests system. 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > This is instead a very simple (handmade) test case that triggers the > problem (attached) > Also a more conforming patch has been attached > > 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms

Attached 2012/2/8 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > Mmm, sorry, the patch I posted crashes if ExitBr is null (which it may > be ...) , this one should be ok (and passess all the ScalarEvolution > tests in LLVM): > > diff --git a/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp b/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp > index daf7742..b10fab2 100644 > ---