similar to: [LLVMdev] Segmentation fault after Running Pass Machine Instruction LICM

Hi guys, I'm new here. I want to write a backend for a microblaze clone, aemb. ( http://www.aeste.my/aemb). I already copy the existing Mblaze target and rename it into aemb and it work exactly as Mblaze, for now. My plan after this is to modify it according to my aemb core. The difference between aemb and MBlaze is that aemb support *two threads*. Any advise or guide where should I dig into

Money Transfer Service 4 Nickelby Close, Thamesmead, LONDON, SE28 8LX UK Hello , My name is John Taher and I suggest you to become a participant of serious business which does not demand any money to start. Our company Money Transfer Service is in London. Earlier we supported transfers only inside of the country, but now we leave on a world level. I think, that you guess, that there are

Hello, I've successfully compiled and installed samba-1.9.18p7 under HP-UX A.09.05 and I am able to "see" Unix disks from my PC. However, each and every time I access my home dir or any subdir, I get this error message being logged by syslogd : May 19 18:35:25 cvxfr smbd[28586]: \ 1998/05/19 18:35:25 chdir() failed in unbecome_user it's repeated again and

Hi, We have a cluster with 130 compute nodes with an NAS-type central storage under gluster (3 bricks, ~50TB). When we run large number of ocean models we can run into bottlenecks with many jobs trying to write to our central storage. It was suggested to us that we could also used gluster to unite the disks on the compute nodes into a single "disk" in which files would be written

G'day All, I've been setting up a new set of DCs, using 4.2.3 and all was going well until I tried to get a 4th DC going. I'm using bind_DLZ, and I think this is where I went wrong. I provisioned the new DC before having set up bind properly (I forgot to "yum install bind bind-util bind-libs") before hand. The provision worked okay, except that it told me

Hi , Thank you for your input. I have had tried all of the escape characters you have have tested with but I have had no luck with them. I am curious to know which versions of net have you been tested with? I do agree that the best practice for this is to remove "-" from the beginning of the object name, However, seeing that it can be created that way allowed, I would like to find a

Thanks for the reply, Does this means in RHEL5.3 with samba version 3.0.x doesn't support trusted domain samba share access. On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:33 PM Rowland Penny via samba < samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 07:32:07 +0530 > Anoop T S via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > Samba share access is not working for trusted domain

Hi All, I'm looking into converting LICM to use MemorySSA instead of AliasSets to determine when it is safe to hoist/sink/promote loads and stores to get around the issue of alias set collapse (see discussion [1]). I have a prototype implementation, but have run into two issues that I could use input from the designers of MemorySSA to resolve: 1) Is MemorySSA intended to be

Hi Daniel, Thanks for the info. I’ve started looking into converting EarlyCSE to use MemorySSA first since 1) I don’t think it needs any additional MemorySSA update API and 2) the particular case I’m looking at needs EarlyCSE to catch more load cases before LICM to be profitable. I have a prototype working, but have run into two issues: 1) readonly calls are treated as clobbers by

On Mar 17, 2006, at 7:54 AM, Eric Kidd wrote: > Unfortunately, this generates really weird code on the LLVM 1.6 > PowerPC backend: > > LBB_matches_1: ; regex6 > lbz r4, 0(r3) > LBB_matches_2: ; NodeBlock > rlwinm r5, r4, 0, 24, 31 > cmplwi cr0, r5, 98 > blt cr0, LBB_matches_4 ; LeafBlock > LBB_matches_3: ; LeafBlock1 >

Hi, > One way to fix this would be to have AliasSetTracker pretend that > pointers to constant memory never alias anything. That's a little > sneaky though, ... on the other hand it is simple and (presumably) effective. Do you think it really could cause trouble? Ciao, Duncan.

Hi all, I just noticed that LICM does not hoist/sink the following store out of the loop: int array[20]; int i; for (i = 0; i<100; i++) { array [0] = 0; } The getElementPtr instruction is hoisted out of the loop; the store is not. Did I miss something obvious? Bitcode file attached. Generated using LLVM 2.5 and llvm-gcc -c -emit-llvm

2009/10/27 Marc Brünink <marc at bruenink.de> > Hi all, > > I just noticed that LICM does not hoist/sink the following store out of the > loop: > > int array[20]; > int i; > for (i = 0; i<100; i++) { > array [0] = 0; > } > > The getElementPtr instruction is hoisted out of the loop; the store is not. > Did I

On Oct 27, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > 2009/10/27 Marc Brünink <marc at bruenink.de> > Hi all, > > I just noticed that LICM does not hoist/sink the following store out > of the loop: > > int array[20]; > int i; > for (i = 0; i<100; i++) { > array [0] = 0; > } > > The getElementPtr instruction

I am using LLVM 2.6 and I have a question on the use of the BasicBlock::iterator to hoist loop invariant instructions to the loop preheader. When I process the instructions backward as shown in the following code, I got the following error right after the "hoist(I)" is done. Can anyone advise whether I am misusing BasicBlock::iterator? /opt/llvms/src/llvm_26/

Hi Gang-Ryung! Your reverse iteration of instructions in the BB > * for (BasicBlock::iterator II = BB->end(); II != BB->begin(); ) *{ > > Instruction &I = *--II; > > if (isLoopInvariantInst(I) && canSinkOrHoistInst(I) && > isSafeToExecuteUnconditionally(I)) > * hoist(I);* >

Hi Yuelu, > After tracking the LICM pass, I find that both loads are loop > invariant, and canSinkOrHoist() also returns true; however the > difference is at Instruction::isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute(), > for load from function parameter pointer, it return false; with load > from a global var pointer, it returns true. As a result no hoist > happens for a load *fp: the function

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Yuelu, > >> After tracking the LICM pass, I find that both loads are loop >> invariant, and canSinkOrHoist() also returns true; however the >> difference is at Instruction::isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute(), >> for load from function parameter pointer, it return false; with load >>

On 11/4/2011 3:29 AM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > I suspect that GCC is doing option 2, or something else I haven't > thought of (TBAA? if so, why doesn't our TBAA do as well?). Nick, The problem is that LLVM's implementation of TBAA does not distinguish between these two types: i32*** @AAA and i32** %arrayidx. We believe that type based alias analysis should, in general, be able

On Nov 4, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Anshuman Dasgupta wrote: > On 11/4/2011 3:29 AM, Nick Lewycky wrote: >> I suspect that GCC is doing option 2, or something else I haven't >> thought of (TBAA? if so, why doesn't our TBAA do as well?). > > Nick, > > The problem is that LLVM's implementation of TBAA does not distinguish > between these two types: i32*** @AAA