similar to: [LLVMdev] Problem using a label to a basic block

Hi all, I think that I came somewhat closer to a solution for splitting a MachineBasicBlock for a PSEUDO_CALL_R instruction and having a label to the new MBB: For following piece of code: --- typedef int callme_t(int a, int b); callme_t* c01; int foo(int a, int b) { return c01(a,b); // MachineBasicBlock will be split at call instruction } --- I have initially following correspondence: BB1

I am trying to use rgenoud and snow with an external model and file I/O. Unlike the typical application of rgenoud and snow, I need to run an external executable and do pre- and post-processing of input and output files for each parameter set generated by genoud(). I'm hoping that someone can suggest improvements to my approach and a work-around for file I/O problems I've encountered when

Can you please post the code to split a MachineBasicBlock? I am trying to split a MachineBasicBlock at a specific instruction in the MBB, let us say, into MBB1 and MBB2. This instruction should go into MBB2. Also MBB1 should have an unconditional branch to MBB2 as the terminator. (quite similar to splitBasicBlock in BasicBlock.cpp) Meanwhile, I am trying to come up with a variant of

Dear all, usually I work under linux, but I tried to install R-1.1.1 on our alpha's which worked well. However, installation of the locfit package produced the following warning: ---------%<---------------- Installing package `locfit' ... libs /vol/bin/gcc -I/vol/math/R/include -I/usr/local/include -mieee -g -O2 -c S_e nter.c -o S_enter.o S_enter.c: In function `basis':

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Jeroen Dobbelaere <Jeroen.Dobbelaere at synopsys.com> wrote: >> From: Eric Christopher >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] How to associate extra comments to a >> MachineInstruction ? >> >> Should be spelled like this yes? >> >> Asm->OutStreamer.AddComment("foo") >> Asm->EmitFoo(); >> >> -eric

Ok I think we have some common ground - CSE should choose the aliased pointer over the non-aliased one because we don't want the no-aliasing information to creep outwards from the inlined callsite. I'll put together a patch in the coming days and add y'all as reviewers so you get visibility. Cheers, -Neil. On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:47 PM Jeroen Dobbelaere < Jeroen.Dobbelaere at

Using 'NEW_BB->setIsLandingPad(true);' seems to resolve everything. Greetings, Jeroen Dobbelaere [...]

> From: Eric Christopher > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] How to associate extra comments to a > MachineInstruction ? > > Should be spelled like this yes? > > Asm->OutStreamer.AddComment("foo") > Asm->EmitFoo(); > > -eric That should work at the moment that you are emitting the instructions. But what would you do when you are manipulating a

character arguments with call_R do not work except in the first position. (In other positions, they just yield a single blank character.) The error is at line 1858 of dotcode.c which should be changed from STRING(CAR(pcall))[i]=s; to STRING(CAR(pcall))[0]=s; Jim -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-devel mailing list -- Read

Should be spelled like this yes? Asm->OutStreamer.AddComment("foo") Asm->EmitFoo(); -eric On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Jeroen Dobbelaere <Jeroen.Dobbelaere at synopsys.com> wrote: > Hi, > > is there a convenient way to associate/add a comment to a MachineInstruction, so that > in the produced assembly file, the comment is added next to the instruction ?

Great, thanks! Are you planning on just talking about these things with slides? Do we have other things to which we can link for people to read? -Hal Hal Finkel Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory ________________________________ From: Tarique Islam <tislam at ca.ibm.com> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:19:31 AM To:

I would like to use the call_R mechanism. Unfortunately I don't fully understand what the arguments are from the example in "R-0.64.2/demos/dynload". Could anybody explain me how I have to define the arguments, e.g., I want to call R with 5 doubles (or double[5]) and func does not return a value (is that possible or is it necessary to return at least a dummy?). This is from the

Consider the following simple C program: /*** hello_r.c ***/ #include <Rinternals.h> SEXP hello() { return mkString("Hello, world!\n"); } int main(void) { SEXP x = hello(); return x == NULL; /* i.e. 0 on success */ } This program segfaults: % myR/bin/R CMD LINK gcc -I./R-2.9.0/src/include -L./myR/lib64/R/lib -lR hello_r.c -o hello_r > /dev/null % hello_r zsh:

Hi Hal, On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jeroen Dobbelaere" <jeroen.dobbelaere at gmail.com> > [... ] > > I am trying to get llvm working for an architecture that has 64bit > > registers, but 32bit addresses. > > Because of that, I want the pointers to also be

Thanks, Jeroen, that really helps. A follow-up question, if you don't mind. What if we have code somewhat similar to your example in assign3() but it's in C++ and the pointer derived from x is stored in a class member field: class S { public: S(int *d): data(d) {} int *getData() { return data; } private: int *__restrict__ data; }; void assign4(int *pA, long N) { int

Well, I actually glue my condition-registers already, but as far as I know this only affects the scheduling from the DAG to the MachineFunction. It still happened that a register allocator at -O0 would spill this register for no reason at all in between these instructions. The CopyCost attribute would help me, if the register allocators would factor it in with the spillWeight calculation. I

On 2012 2 2, at 08:40, Jeroen Dobbelaere <Jeroen.Dobbelaere at synopsys.com> wrote: > I was able to get rid of the 'moves' by setting the copycost to -1. > For getting rid of the spills, I was forced to introduce custom nodes, that pass the CC register > through 'glue'. > > Having a property to register classes that identifies a 'glue-like' behavior

Why not just run the c preprocessor before running tablegen? Micah > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Jeroen Dobbelaere > Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 1:33 AM > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: [LLVMdev] tablegen question > > Hi, > > I am trying to make my tablegen

I have an external pointer object that I'd like to pass from my R code to some C code. Per Section 5.13 of "Writing R Extensions", I've noted that "external pointers should only be used as part of an object with normal semantics, for example an attribute or an element of a list." So I've written up a workable C function as such: SEXP my_c_function(SEXP param)

Hi Alexey, Adding llvm-ir bitcode support means adding/adapting the tags for LOAD/STORE instructions and adding the support for the noalias_sidechannel at the right places. I had a short attempt to implement it when preparing the public patches, but I am not familiar with that part of the llvm code. When I noticed that it would take a lot longer than anticipated, I postponed it. Also because it