similar to: [LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] Branch Probability

Hi Andreas, First, thanks again for undertaking this work and submitting it back. There is a lot of good stuff here and it would be great to see it get back into the tree. I have a few major high-level comments on the patch. First off, the patch is quite large and should be broken down into separate incremental changes which are easier to review and apply. I think the patches should more or less

Hi Daniel, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > First, thanks again for undertaking this work and submitting it back. There is a > lot of good stuff here and it would be great to see it get back into the tree. Thanks for taking the time to review this, I know its a huge patch. I still have a few questions on how you would like this patch to be re-factored and split up. > [...]

Hello list. I am trying to build llvm, clang, compile-rt and lldb. I am working with cygwin (don't ask). Here is my tools list. $ ../llvm-check-tools.sh make GNU Make 3.80 gcc gcc (GCC) 4.5.3 svn svn, version 1.7.10 (r1485443) Python 2.7.3 perl Summary of my perl5 (revision 5 version 14 subversion 2) configuration: m4 m4 (GNU M4) 1.4.16 autoconf autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.69 automake automake

Here's what I've got so far - it seems to work, aside from the fact that DeleteDeadPHIs is not removing at least one dead PHI in my test program. --------------------- static bool mergeBlockIntoSuccessor(BasicBlock *pred, BasicBlock *succ) { if (succ == pred) return false; if (pred->getFirstNonPHI() != pred->getTerminator()) return false; //

This looks like a bug in simplifycfg. We should preserve lifetime intrinsics due to the reasons I described. The code in //lib/Transforms/Utils/Local.cpp: if (Succ->getSinglePredecessor()) { // BB is the only predecessor of Succ, so Succ will end up with exactly // the same predecessors BB had. // Copy over any phi, debug or lifetime instruction.

Hi All, While reading LLVM source code, sometimes I am wondering when should we use auto instead of iterator/const_iterator. I want to use the patch [1] I sent before as an example. Could someone give me advice/guideline here? Also, I have another question. Sometimes the for-loop uses const_iterator, say for (SUnit::const_succ_iterator I = SU->Succs.begin(), E = SU->Succs.end();

Hi Chandler, I'm a GSoC student working on profiling support (mentor CC'ed). I'm no stranger to the issues with the current system: my original proposal was written without knowledge of the limitations. This is why this list hasn't heard much from me yet. I would like to continue working on profiling support but I'm not attached to ProfileInfo and wouldn't be

On 24 December 2012 04:02, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote: > This looks like a bug in simplifycfg. We should preserve lifetime intrinsics > due to the reasons I described. > The code in //lib/Transforms/Utils/Local.cpp: > > if (Succ->getSinglePredecessor()) { > // BB is the only predecessor of Succ, so Succ will end up with exactly > // the

On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Rafael Espíndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > On 24 December 2012 04:02, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote: > > This looks like a bug in simplifycfg. We should preserve lifetime > intrinsics > > due to the reasons I described. > > The code in //lib/Transforms/Utils/Local.cpp: > > > > if

> If you don't want critical edges in the machine code CFG, you're going to > have to write a machine code CFG critical edge splitting pass: LLVM > doesn't currently have one. > > -Chris Hey guys, I've coded a pass to break the critical edges of the machine control flow graph. The program works fine, but I am sure it is not the right way of implementing it.

I try to do single proportion test on my category data. Here is my R script: library("ctest") catSignifTest <- function( catFile ) { ############################################################### ## Get the data sets from text file catData <- read.table( catFile ) ncols <- length(catData) nrows <- length(catData[,1]) ncol1 <- ncols - 1 probeNbr

Hey all, I have a piece of code (written in LLVM 2.8) which uses profiling results produced by ProfileInfo. It essentially computes the number of iterations performed by a loop from the profiling information available. The code snippet in my pass looks something like this. BasicBlock *header = loop->getHeader(); ProfileInfo &pi = getAnalysis< ProfileInfo >(); for(pred_iterator

Hi Chandler and Alastair, I have been using the Profile.pl and the related passes and optimizations for about 4 years now. With every new release lately, the support for the profile scripts and their framework seemed to be downgrading. Hence, I used my own tiny one line fixes to keep them working. I offered to send these small patches to keep these scripts working, to the LLVM dev so that others

Thank you so much for your response. On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 7:36 AM Malhar Thakkar via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> I have a piece of code (written in LLVM 2.8) which uses profiling results >> produced by ProfileInfo.

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 1:28 PM Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 12:46 PM Malhar Thakkar <cs13b1031 at iith.ac.in> > wrote: > >> Thank you so much for your response. >> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>

On May 10, 2008, at 05:44, Mahadevan R wrote: > I'd like to announce the availability of Python bindings for LLVM. > > It is built over llvm-c, and currently exposes enough APIs to build an > in-memory IR (and dump it!). It needs LLVM 2.3 latest and Python 2.5 > (2.4 should be sufficient, but I haven't tested). Tested only on > Linux/i386. > > Would love to hear

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Alastair Murray <alastairmurray42 at gmail.com > wrote: > Hi Chandler, > > I'm a GSoC student working on profiling support (mentor CC'ed). I'm no > stranger to the issues with the current system: my original proposal was > written without knowledge of the limitations. This is why this list > hasn't heard much from me yet.

Jakob, I have a question about the following (four) asserts recently added in bundleWithPred() and bundleWithSucc() (see below). What is the real danger of reasserting a connection even if it already exist? My problem with them happens when I try to call finalizeBundle() on an existing bundle to which I have added a new instruction. The goal - a new bundle header with liveness abbreviation, but

Hi, I am trying to debug my backend, and observe very strange behavior with dbgs(): In the IfConverter, I have added two debugging lines that print floating-point numbers for the sake of demonstration that such printing works fine. bool MeetIfcvtSizeLimit(MachineBasicBlock &BB, unsigned Cycle, unsigned Extra, const BranchProbability

Hi, I've been thinking about how to keep the line number with the llvm transform/Analysis passes. Basically, I agree with Chris's notes ( http://www.nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/DebugInfoImprovements.txt), and I will follow his way to turn on the line number information when optimization enabled. Here is a detailed proposal: 1. Introduction At the time of this writing, LLVM's