similar to: [LLVMdev] Multiple one-line bugs in LLVM

Hi Lockal S, > ---- > > lib/Target/X86/X86ISelLowering.cpp:11689 > !DAG.isKnownNeverZero(LHS)&& !DAG.isKnownNeverZero(LHS)) > > Note that there are identical subexpressions '!DAG.isKnownNeverZero (LHS)' to > the left and to the right of the '&&' operator. > The second subexpression should probably be !DAG.isKnownNeverZero(RHS)). a patch

On Aug 4, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >> >> lib/MC/MCParser/AsmLexer.cpp:149 >> while (CurChar != '\n'&& CurChar != '\n'&& CurChar != EOF) >> >> There are identical sub-expressions to the left and to the right of the '&&' >> operator: CurChar != '\n'&& CurChar != '\n'. The

Ok, here is the patch again... I also included fixes for the bits that originally gave my mailer fits... Two votes for orange, so I went with orange... Doing diffs in .: --- ./lib/AsmParser/LLLexer.cpp.~1~ 2007-12-14 22:09:06.000000000 -0800 +++ ./lib/AsmParser/LLLexer.cpp 2007-12-15 13:02:47.000000000 -0800 @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ static uint64_t HexIntToVal(const char * Result +=

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62 Summary: I patched the iptables-restore and liblptulog for string included "," " Product: iptables userspace Version: 1.2.7a Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2

Hello to everybody, I'm working on some improvements on trip count computation with ScalarEvolution analysis. Considering the following test ;----------------------------------------------------------------------------; define void @foo(i32 %a, i32 %b, i32 %s) #0 { entry: %cmp = icmp sgt i32 %s, 0 %cmp15 = icmp sgt i32 %a, %b %or.cond = and i1 %cmp, %cmp15 br i1 %or.cond, label

Sorry, the old title didn't make sense. > Hi, > > I have doubts on the following transformation in InstCombineAddSub.cpp. Is > it always safe to preserve NSW/NUW in this case? > > // If this is a 'B = x-(-A)', change to B = x+A. This preserves NSW/NUW. if (Value

On Oct 1, 2013, at 6:45 AM, Michele Scandale <michele.scandale at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello to everybody, > > I'm working on some improvements on trip count computation with ScalarEvolution > analysis. > Considering the following test > > ;----------------------------------------------------------------------------; > define void @foo(i32 %a, i32 %b, i32 %s) #0

I wish to recode the following php code to ruby: function text_decrypt_symbol($s, $i) { # $s is a text-encoded string, $i is index of 2-char code. function returns number in range 0-255 return (ord(substr($s, $i, 1)) - 100)*16 + ord(substr($s, $i +1, 1)) - 100; } function text_decrypt($s) { if ($s == "") return $s; $enc = 85 ^ text_decrypt_symbol($s,

The LangRef says this for left shifts: "If the nsw keyword is present, then the shift produces a poison value if it shifts out any bits that disagree with the resultant sign bit." ... (1) followed by "As such, NUW/NSW have the same semantics as they would if the shift were expressed as a mul instruction with the same nsw/nuw bits in (mul %op1, (shl 1, %op2))." ... (2) But

Re-adding the list, below message was sent to me alone: On 11 August 2011 13:45, Rinaldini Julien <julien.rinaldini at heig-vd.ch> wrote: > Thx for all answers... > > I'll try that. But in a long term what I want to do will be a bit more complicated... It was just an example. In this case, the goal is to replace all add with sub that return the same result, like: > > var

----- Original Message ----- > > On Oct 1, 2013, at 6:45 AM, Michele Scandale > <michele.scandale at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello to everybody, > > > > I'm working on some improvements on trip count computation with > > ScalarEvolution > > analysis. > > Considering the following test > > > >

Hi, I have a question about the llvm passes. I'm iterating over a basicblock and I can get an instruction and print it. Now, I want to iterate over the instruction and be able to modify the values of the instruction. For example, if my instruction is an add "<result> = add i32 4, %var" I want to transform it in a sub "<result> = sub i32 4, %var". I looked up

I've been doing some digging in this area (scev, wrapping arithmetic), learning as much as I can, and have reached a point where I'm fairly confused about the semantics of nuw in scalar evolution expressions. Consider the following program: define void @foo(i32 %begin) { entry: br label %loop loop: %idx = phi i32 [ %begin, %entry ], [ %idx.dec, %loop ] %idx.dec = sub nuw i32