similar to: [LLVMdev] Uninitialized variables and mem2reg pass

I have a question about PromoteMem2Reg::RewriteSingleStoreAlloca. Specifically, this bit of code: // If the store dominates the block and if we haven't processed it yet, // do so now. We can't handle the case where the store doesn't dominate a // block because there may be a path between the store and the use, but we // may need to insert phi nodes to handle dominance

+nlewycky On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Volodymyr Kuznetsov <vova.kuznetsov at epfl.ch > wrote: > Hi Kostya, > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Volodymyr Kuznetsov < > vova.kuznetsov at epfl.ch> wrote: > > Do you think moving the pass to lib/Transform/Instrumentation but > > scheduling it during code generation would make sense ? If so, we'll >

Hi Kostya, >On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:50 AM, Volodymyr Kuznetsov <vova.kuznetsov at epfl.ch >> wrote: > >> Dear LLVM developers, >> >> We've applied the feedback we received on Phabricator on the SafeStack >> patches, >> > >Did you investigate the possibility of moving the transformation from >codegen to the LLVM level, i.e. the same level

Hi Dave, Did that patch of yours ever make it into trunk? I can't seem to find any related checkin for PromoteMemoryToRegister.cpp. I've been doing some extra profiling lately and the RewriteSingleStoreAlloca function alone is taking a whopping 63% of execution time. Thanks! Nicolas -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]

Hi all, While profiling LLVM I noticed that a significant amount of time is spent in the RewriteSingleStoreAlloca function. Especially for fairly long basic blocks, linearly searching for uses before a store isn't fast. So I was wondering if there isn't a faster way to locate these uses? Are there any other known opportunities for optimization? I noticed that register allocation

On Monday 11 August 2008 09:58, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi all, > > > > While profiling LLVM I noticed that a significant amount of time is spent > in the RewriteSingleStoreAlloca function. Especially for fairly long basic > blocks, linearly searching for uses before a store isn't fast. So I was > wondering if there isn't a faster way to locate these uses? YES! I

On Wednesday 24 September 2008 09:35, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Did that patch of yours ever make it into trunk? I can't seem to find any > related checkin for PromoteMemoryToRegister.cpp. I've been doing some extra > profiling lately and the RewriteSingleStoreAlloca function alone is taking > a whopping 63% of execution time. I will commit it today along with

On Thursday 25 September 2008 07:40, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi Dave, > > As an exercise I tried to fix this myself, and I think I have a working > patch (attached). My own tests are all working wonderfully, and at > fantastic performance! > > I'm looking forward to your patch to see whether we used the same approach > or whether things could be improved further. >

On Oct 26, 2008, at 11:09 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> Fundamentally, we need a map from BasicBlock to a list of ordered >> loads and >> stores in that block. > > Are you seeing cases where lots of time is spent in > RewriteSingleStoreAlloca[s]? If so, please provide a testcase and I > can apply the obvious fix. Okay, I decided to just go ahead and make the change,

On Oct 21, 2008, at 10:16 AM, David Greene wrote: > On Monday 20 October 2008 16:14, Chris Lattner wrote: > >> Ok, if you need this direction, just use an >> std::vector<pair<unsigned,Instruction*>> as a forward map? You can >> do >> fast binary searches in it. > > I don't see how that helps. I need a map from BasicBlock to a list > of

Hi Dave, As an exercise I tried to fix this myself, and I think I have a working patch (attached). My own tests are all working wonderfully, and at fantastic performance! I'm looking forward to your patch to see whether we used the same approach or whether things could be improved further. Anyway, I've re-profiled the code and found ComputeLiveInBlocks to be the main hotspot now. Again

On Sep 26, 2008, at 8:41 AM, David Greene wrote: > On Thursday 25 September 2008 13:15, David Greene wrote: > >> My patch builds a map from BasicBlock to lists of loads and stores >> in that >> block in an initialization phase along with ordering information >> about the >> loads and stores. RewriteSingleStoreAlloca then queries that >> information

On Monday 06 October 2008 11:47, David Greene wrote: > > As far as the approach goes, here's a counterproposal that is a bit > > less complex. I suggest adding a single DenseMap<Instruction*, > > unsigned> to Mem2reg. If there is an entry in this map for a load/ > > store instruction, it would store the instruction's index in its basic > > block.

On Thursday 25 September 2008 13:15, David Greene wrote: > My patch builds a map from BasicBlock to lists of loads and stores in that > block in an initialization phase along with ordering information about the > loads and stores. RewriteSingleStoreAlloca then queries that information > to determine if a load appears before the single store. > > I like your approach of using

Hi all, I already can successfully join Samba 3 (3.3.x) server to AD domain and setup winbind service to see domain users on linux server. The main problem for me is that I want to save all already existing uids and gids on linux server without any change. Firstly, I can map domain user to unix user with "username map" option vova = CORP\vova But this trick doesn't work for

On Oct 20, 2008, at 10:04 AM, David Greene wrote: > On Monday 06 October 2008 11:47, David Greene wrote: > >>> As far as the approach goes, here's a counterproposal that is a bit >>> less complex. I suggest adding a single DenseMap<Instruction*, >>> unsigned> to Mem2reg. If there is an entry in this map for a load/ >>> store instruction, it

I want only to ignore the arp request for alias ip ,at the same time I don't want disable the arp function of the interface ? How do ? thanks! --------------------------------- DO YOU YAHOO!? ÑÅ»¢Ãâ·ÑGÓÊÏ䣭ÖйúµÚÒ»¾øÎÞÀ¬»øÓʼþɧÈų¬´óÓÊÏä From vova at fbsd.ru Fri Jul 1 13:12:10 2005 From: vova at fbsd.ru (Vladimir Grebenschikov) Date: Fri Jul 1 13:12:12 2005 Subject: how to ignore

Calling from PSTN let extension 601 ring twice, hang up and starts over again to ring twice, ... If I pickup I do not hear on extension 601, and on the PSTN it is still signaling to ring. Can anybody enlighten me, please? extension.conf [incoming_88097074] exten => s,1,Wait(1) ;wait to get caller ID in. exten => s,2,Dial(SIP/102,20) exten => s,3,Voicemail(u102) exten =>

At the same site, DTMF recognition is functioning badly, sometimes duplicating digits and sometimes totally missing others. We have checked already /proc/interrups, there is no interrupt being shared. Our zaptel has .. span=1,1,0,ccs,hdb3 On zapata we have ... switchtype=euroisdn signalling=pri_cpe relaxdtmf=no (yes doesn't seem to help) -----Original Message----- From:

On Monday 20 October 2008 16:14, Chris Lattner wrote: > Ok, if you need this direction, just use an > std::vector<pair<unsigned,Instruction*>> as a forward map? You can do > fast binary searches in it. I don't see how that helps. I need a map from BasicBlock to a list of loads and stores. > > I suppose we could resctrict the map to containing only load and