similar to: [LLVMdev] Avoiding Constant Folding

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Cuong Pham <phamcuongbk at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi All, > > My codegen is trying to generate some thing like this: > > entry: > .... >  %34 = icmp ne i32 %33, 15 >  br i1 %34, label %then, label %else > > then:                                             ; preds = %entry >  %returnValue = or i1 true, false > .... >

Hi, >> entry: >> .... >> %34 = icmp ne i32 %33, 15 >> br i1 %34, label %then, label %else >> >> then: ; preds = %entry >> %returnValue = or i1 true, false >> .... >> br label %ifmerge >> >> else: ; preds = %entry >> br label

Thank you guys, now I understand the problem. I am trying to avoid using stack memory (or mutable variable is the term used in the tutorial). I am also trying to optimize the code as much as I can before using optimizer passes such as mem2reg (to reduce the compile time as well). With regards, --Cuong Duncan Sands wrote: > > Hi, > >>> entry: >>> .... >>>

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote: > >> >> On Oct 18, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: >> >> As for why it should be an IR pass, mostly because once the selection >>> dag runs through the code, we can never

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote: > > On Oct 18, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > As for why it should be an IR pass, mostly because once the selection dag >> runs through the code, we can never recover all of the freedom we have at >> the IR level. To start with, splicing MBBs around requires known about

In R devel rev.66393 (2014-08-15) it was possible to do this: trace(optim, exit = quote(str(returnValue()))) but returnValue() does not seem to be available any more. The above was useful to get the output of a function when it was called deep within another function that I have no control over. Has this been replaced by some other equivalent function? P.S. This demonstrates that it no

Suppose a programmer wants to inject their own global label definition into the body of a function with some guarantee that it will not be removed by the compiler. One way to do this is to define a global label with an asm statement knowing that the asm statement will not be invoked until after the compiler's optimization passes have run, but the following case demonstrates that a label

Drear there: The problem I have is to lower an intrinsic function like this ” float @llvm.write.arg(flaot %src, float* %dst) “ I am lowering it with INTRINSIC_W_CHAIN, so the return value and the value to write to dst are generated with some operations using src: " // it is the frame index node corresponding to input pointer SDvalue frindex = Op.getoperand(3); … SDValue returnValue =

The team I am working with is using asm statements containing label definitions as a way of instrumentation so that when an application is loaded into their debug and test framework, the labels will cause breakpoints to be set at strategic points where they can query the state of the processor that the application is running on. ~ Todd From: Eli Friedman [mailto:efriedma at quicinc.com] Sent:

I am getting a NoMethodError, with the following decription: You have a nil object when you didn''t expect it! You might have expected an instance of Array. The error occurred while evaluating nil.split The error is raised on function call line of the ''.html.erb'' file. The function is present in the relevant ''helper.rb'' file and contains the

Hi, I haven't been able to reproduce this problem on a smaller test and the original source code is from another virtual machine's IR. What I found out was that 42 << 7 is actually DPSoRegImmFrm, defined in ARMInstrFormats.td. This format is not dealt with in the ARMCodeEmitter.cpp and that's the problem I'm facing. The triple I'm using is

Hi Paul, Regarding the "No Touchie!" constraint idea for asm statements: would this be a new qualifier (like volatile) that could be applied to the asm statement? Since the constraint is not necessarily associated with an input or output operand, it seems that introducing the constraint via the qualifier field might work. All, The volatile qualifier on an asm statement already

Hi Guillermo, I’m unable to reproduce the error you’re seeing with your bitcode input. “llc –mtriple armv7a-unknown-linux-gnueabi –O3” succeeds. What are you using to reproduce, and what version? Cheers, James From: Guillermo Perez [mailto:gaperez64 at gmail.com] Sent: 20 February 2012 11:32 To: James Molloy; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] ARM opcode format Hi, I haven't

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:46 PM, sarath chandra <sarathcse19 at gmail.com>wrote: > Hi James, > > First i converted the void * to int* and then did FPToSI...then did SHL...( > because CreateShl only accepts integers... i pointer casted it to int64 type > first)... Below is the code snippet.... > > > lhs = mBuilder.CreateStructGEP(firstArg, 0); > lhs =

Some formula methods for S3 generic functions use the idiom returnValue$call <- sys.call(sys.parent()) to show how to recreate the returned object or to use as a label on a plot. It is often followed by returnValue$call[[1]] <- quote(myName) E.g., I see it in packages "latticeExtra" and "leaps", and I suspect it used in "lattice" as well. This idiom

Hi Sarath, It would have really helped if you had removed the commented out code and inlined the calls to your homemade helper functions before sending it... You are doing this, in LLVM IR: %0 = getelementptr %Value* %firstArg, i32 0 ; i8** %1 = load i8** %0 ; i8* %2 = bitcast i8* %1 to i64* %3 = getelementptr %Value* %secondArg, i32 0 ; i8** %4 = load i8** %3; i8* %5 = bitcast i8* %4 to i64*

Yeah, that's the fault...got the answer...... Thanks James for the help... Struggling with this for so many days....... On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 4:02 PM, James Molloy <James.Molloy at arm.com> wrote: > Hi Sarath,**** > > ** ** > > It would have really helped if you had removed the commented out code and > inlined the calls to your homemade helper functions before

Hi, I'm sorry I forgot to mention I am compiling the bitcode using the JIT. The actual error, I get when I'm trying to get the function to the pointer. I'm using a custom front end that translates Android's Dalvik bytecode into LLVM bitcode based on Android ICS's modified LLVM version. Thanks, On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:55 PM, James Molloy <James.Molloy at arm.com>

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Johan Engelen via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I just found an optimization regression regarding simple > > dataflow/constprop analysis: > > https://godbolt.org/g/Uz8P7t > > > > This code >

Here is a case where the current scheme fails: > with(datasets::mtcars, xyplot(mpg~wt|gear)$call) xyplot(substitute(expr), data, enclos = parent.frame()) Bill Dunlap TIBCO Software wdunlap tibco.com On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:09 AM, Deepayan Sarkar <deepayan.sarkar at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 2:36 AM, William Dunlap via R-devel > <r-devel at