similar to: [LLVMdev] GC plugin: Not add (postcall) safe point after tail-call

On Nov 1, 2011, at 4:47 AM, Nicolas Geoffray <nicolas.geoffray at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the review Gordon. > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > On 2011-10-31, at 17:21, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > > > Here's a patch to allow a GCStrategy to customize the places where it wants to insert safe points.

Thanks for the review Gordon. On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com>wrote: > On 2011-10-31, at 17:21, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > > > Here's a patch to allow a GCStrategy to customize the places where it > wants to insert safe points. I'm not sure who maintains the GC code today > in LLVM (I'd be happy to take ownership, if

Hi Chris, Gordon, Here's a patch to allow a GCStrategy to customize the places where it wants to insert safe points. I'm not sure who maintains the GC code today in LLVM (I'd be happy to take ownership, if needed). The patch just adds up a custom safepoints flag, similar to the way the GCStrategy can customize intrinsics lowering, or roots initialization. It works pretty well, as

On 2011-10-31, at 17:21, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Here's a patch to allow a GCStrategy to customize the places where it wants to insert safe points. I'm not sure who maintains the GC code today in LLVM (I'd be happy to take ownership, if needed). > > The patch just adds up a custom safepoints flag, similar to the way the GCStrategy can customize intrinsics lowering, or

Hi, Following Chris' advice, I will rebase the patches and break them in 3 distinct emails (one at a time) in order to be easier for a reviewer to approve/comments. Please note that the three patches while being code-wise independent, they 're strongly-connected *semantically*, meaning that including just a subset of these patches to LLVM's code base is quite weak if the others are

Hi, We 've been working on an LLVM backend for High Performance Erlang (HiPE) [1], the native code compiler of Erlang/OTP [2]. ErLLVM [3] targets the X86 and AMD64 architectures for now but there is some ongoing work from a team on the Uppsala University to also support ARM. In our implementation, we have paid special attention on retaining ABI-compatibility with the Erlang Runtime System in

This patch (and the others that will follow) are rebased on svn r155440: "AVX2: The BLENDPW instruction selects between vectors of v16i16 using an i8 immediate. We can't use it here because the shuffle code does not check that the lower part of the word is identical to the upper part" Patch 1/3: The attached commits add a new calling convention to support the LLVM backend for

Also sprach xli3 at uiuc.edu: } In the section expaining "dyn_cast" } There are following lines of code: } if (AllocationInst *AI = dyn_cast<AllocationInst>(Val)) { } ... } } } I cannot understand how you take a operand, a value, and cast } it into a Instruction. Can you explain it for me? } } Another common example is: } } // Loop over all of the phi nodes

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Peter A Jonsson <pj at sics.se> wrote: > Hi Kyle, > > my apologies for mailing you directly but it seems new user creation is > disabled on the llvm bugzilla. > > We sometime lose edges during IfConversion of diamonds and it’s not > obvious how to reproduce on an upstream target. The documentation for > HasFallThrough says *may*

Hi all! I have a problem setting ACLs on a remote file on a Windows XP Pro SP2 box. I issue the following command: smbcacls -a 'ACL:BBI-DEV\beakid:ALLOWED/0/0x00100116' -U 'BBI-DEV \Admin' //BBI-DEV/Data /Niva.txt And I get this response from debug level 3. Password: Connecting to host=BBI-DEV Connecting to 192.168.1.124 at port 445 Doing spnego session setup (blob

In the section expaining "dyn_cast" There are following lines of code: if (AllocationInst *AI = dyn_cast<AllocationInst>(Val)) { ... } I cannot understand how you take a operand, a value, and cast it into a Instruction. Can you explain it for me? Another common example is: // Loop over all of the phi nodes in a basic block BasicBlock::iterator BBI =

Hi all! I have a problem setting ACLs on a remote file on a Windows XP Pro SP2 box. I issue the following command: smbcacls -a 'ACL:BBI-DEV\beakid:ALLOWED/0/0x00100116' -U 'BBI-DEV \Admin' //BBI-DEV/Data /Niva.txt And I get this response from debug level 3. Password: Connecting to host=BBI-DEV Connecting to 192.168.1.124 at port 445 Doing spnego session setup (blob

Evan, et al., I've come across a small issue when using the if conversion pass in PPC to generate conditional returns. Here's a small example: ** Before if conversion ** BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry %R3<def> = LI 0 %CR0<def> = CMPLWI %R3, 0 BCC 68, %CR0, <BB#3> Successors according to CFG: BB#3(16) BB#1(16) BB#1: derived from LLVM BB

Hi all, I'm looking for a LLVM method/class/strategy to know the lifetime of every variable/value used in a given Module. I want to know the variables that must be alive at the input and at the end of every function call (and every BasicBlock). By creating a pass inheriting from ModulePass I can reach up to here: virtual bool runOnFunction(Function &F) { ... for

On 4/10/2013 12:45 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > > Should AnalyzeBranch be enhanced to somehow indicate conditional returns? I don't think that returns can ever be analyzable (since LLVM's CFG does not have a designated exit block). > Alternatively, the diamond conversion routine contains this: > > // RemoveExtraEdges won't work if the block has an unanalyzable branch,

my compiler gave me a warning in MCObjectDisassembler.cpp. it found a self-comparation in loop condition. I think it's a typo. the suspicious code was introduced by this patch: >From f176482752fbea3139394e280adfb10270dd3aac Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ahmed Bougacha <ahmed.bougacha at gmail.com> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 07:28:55 +0000 Subject: MC CFG: Support disassembly at

Any chance of adding some missing test coverage here? That code was dead (& evidently untested) before... On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > I believe you are correct. Fixed thusly: > > dzur:~/sources/llvm> git svn dcommit > Committing to https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk ... > M

Hi, TL;DR: A loop doesn't get vectorized due to the interaction of loop- rotate, licm and instcombine. What to do about it? Full story: In the benchmarks for our out-of-tree target we have a case that we would like to get vectorized, but currently it isn't. I've done some digging to see why and have some kind of idea what prevents it, but I don't know what the best way to fix

On 02/24/2014 11:27 AM, Andrew Trick wrote: > > On Feb 24, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com > <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > >> >> On 02/24/2014 12:45 AM, Andrew Trick wrote: >>> >>> On Feb 21, 2014, at 10:37 AM, Philip Reames >>> <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at

Dear R-users I intend to create a function which calls some smaller other functions in return. Some of these smaller functions all call some functions. I do not know a good way to do this. I tried using the source() function to include the smaller functions within the main functions before they are called. This does not work, or maybe i am not doing the right thing. For example: the