similar to: [LLVMdev] copy Value object?

Sorry, I'm a bit confused by your reply. I think part of my problem is I can only think of this in terms of Passes. For instance, my pass looks for assignments and tries to use the same pointer operand, before the assignment it finds. Like this: new ICmpInst(*block, CmpInst::ICMP_NE, shadow, store->getPointerOperand(), "Shadow check"); So I'm not sure how alloca

On 9/19/11 12:53 PM, ret val wrote: > Is there a easy way to copy a Value object, so it can be used in > multiple instructions without a dominance issue? A value object can be used multiple times with no problem. The dominance problem stems from the fact that the program must be in SSA form. When the program uses a value, it must have been defined dynamically for all possible executions

On 9/19/11 2:48 PM, ret val wrote: > Sorry, I'm a bit confused by your reply. I think part of my problem is > I can only think of this in terms of Passes. > > For instance, my pass looks for assignments and tries to use the same > pointer operand, before the assignment it finds. Like this: > new ICmpInst(*block, CmpInst::ICMP_NE, shadow, >

Hi, does LLVM have a mechanism to automatically update SSA form, e.g. after insertion of additional definitions of a variable? This would recursively traverse the dominance tree of all uses of the definition backwards and insert phi-functions where ever they are needed. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=277656&dl=GUIDE, (Paragraph 4.5) provides an algorithm for such an incremental SSA

Hello everyone, I am writing a pass to instrument program and count how many basic block executed. What I have tried is to instrument a local counter inside each function, add 1 to the local counter inside each basic block, and save the counter value to a global counter. The current runtime overhead is around 25%. Is there any way I can try to lower the overhead? Like keeping the local counter

Hello, R gives us the correlation functions cor(). (Many thanks ;-)) Does it also exist a "moving correlation" coefficient ? (like the moving average). If not, could someone give me some infos or link on how to practically implement such a function in R. (I did search for "moving correlation" on the R homepage but didn't find anything.) Thank you. Vincent

While working on my optimization pass (a Function Pass), I try to replicate a call instruction and insert it at some earlier location (similar to LICM). However, the instruction I am trying to replicate has dependencies on an uncertain number of instructions that are used to generate an address. A simple example (IR segment): define void @foo() nounwind { entry: %a = alloca i32, align 4;

Hi John, Thanks a lot for the reply! I try mem2reg opt and also implement the algorithm proposed in "Efficiently Counting Program Events with Support for On-line Queries" to place the local counter smarter. If I build the executable by using -O0, the overhead would be 20% - 30%. But if I build the executable by using -O2, the overhead would be more than 3X. I feel instrumenting counter

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Raul Silvera" <rsilvera at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 10:34:39 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Upcoming

On 1/26/18 1:04 AM, Linhai Song via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > I am writing a pass to instrument program and count how many basic > block executed. What I have tried is to instrument a local counter > inside each function, add 1 to the local counter inside each basic > block, and save the counter value to a global counter. The current > runtime

Dear Chuck, I haven't read all of the details, but it seems that what you need to do is to clone defs before you clone any uses of the def. To do that, you want to iterate over the instructions in dominator-tree order. To do that, you first construct the dominator tree (there is an LLVM analysis pass that does that). Then, you iterate over the basic blocks in the dominator tree from

Hi, How to correlate the LLVM IR-leve instructions and memory values with the machine instructions and memory locations? For example, if CMP instruction in machine ISA is selected for the ICMP instruction in LLVA, with the Instruction datastructure for ICMP, is it possible to get the memory address of CMP instruction? Assume that the code segment base address is given. Similarly, by

Am Mo., 22. Juli 2019 um 10:50 Uhr schrieb Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov>: > Why introduce a new intrinsic (family)? It seems that would require us > to support GEPs and GEP + "multi-dim" semantics in various places. What is > the benefit over a GEP extension? Adding an intrinsic is easier than adding or extending an existing instruction, as suggested by

Keun Soo Yim wrote: > > Hi, > > How to correlate the LLVM IR-leve instructions and memory values > with the machine instructions and memory locations? Can you tell us what goal you are trying to accomplish that requires you to do this? There might be better ways of doing what you want. The answer to your question probably depends on whether you're trying to write a

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 6, 2012, at 5:08 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > >>>> >>>> It's very like SSA construction, but must make provision >>>> testing anti dependences.  I had planned to use dominance frontiers to >>>> guide placement of phi nodes, as usual. >>>

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Evgeny Astigeevich <Evgeny.Astigeevich at arm.com> wrote: > Hi Anirudh, > > > > I hope these lecture slides about SSA and the dominance frontier will help > you with SSA and control flow analysis: > > > > http://www.seas.harvard.edu/courses/cs252/2011sp/slides/Lec04-SSA.pdf > > > > Unfortunately a use of

hello all I am writing a quite simple script to study dental wear patterns in humans and I wrote this function sqrt(var(Y1)+var(Y2))^2-4(var(Y1)*(var(Y2)-cov(Y1,Y2)^2)) but appear this error message Error: attempt to apply non-function alternatively I wrote this sqrt(var(Y1)+var(Y2)^2)-4[(var(Y1)*(var(Y2)-cov(Y1,Y2)^2))] but this error message appear [1] NA Warning message: NAs introduced

On Jan 6, 2012, at 5:08 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >>> >>> It's very like SSA construction, but must make provision >>> testing anti dependences. I had planned to use dominance frontiers to >>> guide placement of phi nodes, as usual. >> >> Ok, in that case, please check out include/llvm/Transforms/Utils/SSAUpdater.h, >> which is the

Hi, I have measured two response variables (y1, y2) at each treatment level (x = 0, 1.5 or 3). Now I would like to show the y1 and y2 against x in a bar plot. However, y1 and y2 differ in scale so I need two y-axises, one on the left side and one on the right side (and I dont want to standardize my responses). This is fairly easy if you want to show points,lines etc, but gets more complicated

Dear all I have a code like x<-1:10 y1<-x+runif(10)*2 y2<-seq(0,50,length.out=10)+rnorm(10)*10 par(mfrow=c(1,2)) plot(y1~x) plot(y2~x) Now I would like to plot y1 and y2 on the same graph, with its two scales (y1 on left and y2 on rigth side). Any help are welcome. Kind regards Miltinho Brazil [[alternative HTML version deleted]]