similar to: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] Get DCE to consider livein PhysRegs to successor basic blocks.

On Jun 21, 2011, at 12:51 AM, Sanjoy Das wrote: > Adds code to have DCE start off with a list of physical registers to be > live on entry to at least one successor basic block (as mentioned in the > FIXME comment). Looks good, but keep the comment (sans FIXME).

Hi all, I am using the fast register allocator on a partially allocated machine function. I have noticed reserved registers (i.e. liveins) are marked as free after first use (in usePhysReg(..) method). This seems an error to me as a livein might be still used later in the basic block. As I understand this should check for isKill() before marking it as free, but I see it even *sets* the kill

Hi, I am working with regular dominator tree and not MachineDominatorTree. I wanted to modify the CFG structure and for that I need to change successor of a basic block. How can I do that? Or is there a way to cast a BasicBlock to MachineBasicBlock so that i can use functions addSucessor and removeSuccessor for the basic block. It will be great if someone can help. regards, Ambika

Hi Tom, As far as I can tell EmitLiveInCopies is just there to handle physreg arguments and return values. Is there any reason for these to change late in your backend? - Lang. On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard at amd.com>wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:17:11PM -0800, Lang Hames wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > I'm pretty sure this

Hi Guys- We are a group involved in a project to move an application from Windows to AIX, and part of the application involves reading OSF DFS shares, and making the filesystem available to Windows machines through SAMBA. The conversion of the application has gone well, but it is our first time using SAMBA and I have some questions that hopefully are not too dumb, and if they are, we would gladly

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:17:11PM -0800, Lang Hames wrote: > Hi Tom, > > I'm pretty sure this function should only ever be called once, by > SelectionDAG. Do you know where the second call is coming from in your code? > > Cheers, > Lang. Hi Lang, I was calling EmitLiveInCopies() from one of my backend specific passes. If the function can only be called once, then

Hi all, Is there a pass that computes livein information for each MachineBasicBlock? I tried to find such a pass but could not find any. I am trying to use the livein information to get dead registers to insert some instructions right before code emission but the livein information seems to be invalidated by some pass. I might need to recompute the livein information before my pass. Thanks a

I would like to maintain the livein information for physical registers on basic blocks past register allocation, or recreate it if possible. The goal is to be able to run a late pass of DeadMachineInstrElim, which requires valid livein information. The X86 target returns false for requiresRegisterScavenging so passes like BranchFolding don't update the livein information. At that point I

Hi Tom, I'm pretty sure this function should only ever be called once, by SelectionDAG. Do you know where the second call is coming from in your code? Cheers, Lang. On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Stellard, Thomas <Tom.Stellard at amd.com>wrote: > This patch seems to have been lost on the llvm-commits mailing list. > Would someone be able to review it? > > Thanks, >

This patch seems to have been lost on the llvm-commits mailing list. Would someone be able to review it? Thanks, Tom ________________________________________ From: llvm-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [llvm-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] on behalf of Tom Stellard [thomas.stellard at amd.com] Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 1:55 PM To: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [llvm-commits]

I have a dataframe as follows: Date time value 20110620 11:18:00 7 20110620 11:39:00 9 20110621 11:41:00 8 20110621 11:40:00 6 20110622 14:05:00 8 20110622 14:06:00 6 For every date, I want to extract the row that has the greatest time. Therefore, ending up like: 20110620 11:39:00 9 20110621 11:41:00 8 20110622 14:07:00 6 I am using for loops (for every date, find largest time value) to do

In practice, APT is not faster to build than rdf. The df calculator we use is linear time and quite fast. Updating is also pretty trivial since it's only deletes of dead and unreachable code. So anything it reached can be replaced with undef in most cases. Cd-dce is not slower in GCC than dce On Fri, Jan 29, 2016, 8:31 PM David Callahan <dcallahan at fb.com> wrote: > I think you

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"David Callahan via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *To: *"Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org>, "LLVM Dev Mailing list" < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *Sent: *Thursday, January 28, 2016

<div class="socmaildefaultfont" dir="ltr" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10.5pt" ><div class="socmaildefaultfont" dir="ltr" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10.5pt" ><div dir="ltr" > </div> <div dir="ltr" >Hi all,</div> <div dir="ltr" > </div> <div

Maybe I was too quick here. Does gcc record the incoming edge to a phi? If so, won’t those change when you delete blocks in a non-trivial manner? How are those updated? From: David Callahan <dcallahan at fb.com<mailto:dcallahan at fb.com>> Date: Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 7:02 AM To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org<mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org>>, Hal Finkel

I'm assuming that you're talking about a situation where this can't be determined statically in the existing LLVM IR, but you know it's true and want to put it in (e.g. you're the one generating LLVM IR). If that's not the case, then see if JumpThreading will do it for you. I'm not familiar with a way to express exactly what you want to say, but are you opposed to just

Suppose I have a bb with N predecessors and N successors. What is, in your opinion, the best way to express that the bb has (dynamically) only one successor (i.e. if coming from the i-th predecessor we will always jump to the i-th successor)? b.r., -- Carlo Alberto Ferraris <cafxx at strayorange.com <mailto:cafxx at strayorange.com>> website/blog

I had assumed you would treat phi nodes differently from other operations in that they don’t need to keep the block alive just to retain the data flow facts but it would be simplest to do that. Thanks Daniel From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org<mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org>> Date: Friday, January 29, 2016 at 10:26 PM To: David Callahan <dcallahan at

<div class="socmaildefaultfont" dir="ltr" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10.5pt" ><div dir="ltr" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10.5pt" ><div dir="ltr" >Matthias,</div> <div dir="ltr" > </div> <div dir="ltr" >Thanks for the response.</div> <div

I think you can also avoid the RDF computation using a more directed form of control dependence testing such as described in Keshav Pingali and Gianfranco Bilardi. 1997. Optimal control dependence computation and the Roman chariots problem. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 19, 3 (May 1997), 462-491. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/256167.256217 However one challenge seems to be fixing the SSA graph