similar to: [LLVMdev] Branch Instruction layout

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> Date: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Order of Basic Blocks To: Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at googlemail.com> This worked, though the RPO_iterator apparently wasn't what I was looking for anyways, it seems it doesn't rreally go top->down. I have a simple example code,

> On Sep 21, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > > // For all predecessors of this MBB, find the set of VarLocs that > // can be joined. > for (auto p : MBB.predecessors()) { > auto OL = OutLocs.find(p); > // Join is null in case of empty OutLocs from any of the pred. > if (OL == OutLocs.end()) >

On 10/27/10 8:34 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Brian West<bnwest at rice.edu> wrote: >> Here is the patch for the new Operator Strength Reduction optimization >> pass that I have written. The bulk of the code is in >> >> lib/Transforms/Scalar/OperatorStrengthReduce.cpp >> >> The algorithm finds reduction opportunities in

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Brian West <bnwest at rice.edu> wrote: >> 3. LLVM already has a significant amount of infrastructure for loop >> passes; why does this pass have its own code for finding loops? > > I saw the loop infrastructure for CFG loops. This algorithm finds loops in > the data flow (more precisely: strongly-connected components in the >

On 08/05/2010 06:46 AM, Wenbin Zhang wrote: > Hi all, > I'm using postDominatorTree to do some program analysis. My code works > well for small tests, but when I run it on real applications, the > following error occurs: > /Inorder PostDominator Tree: DFSNumbers invalid: 0 slow queries. > [1] <<exit node>> {0,21} > [2] %bb1 {1,2} > [2] %bb {3,4} > [2]

Hi, this question might be a bit silly: apart from the language reference(http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#switch-instruction) page, are there additional rules for a regular llvm frontend to generate llvm IRs? There are a few cases that I got from clang/llvm-gcc/dragonegg when compiling *C* source code into llvm IR: 1. It seems that there is ONLY ONE ReturnInst(and NO InvokeInst) for such llvm

I'll try the trunk, as well as check my code again. If indeed it's not fixed, I'll try to post a triggering case here. Thanks for the advice~ Best, --Wenbin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tobias Grosser" <grosser at fim.uni-passau.de> To: "Wenbin Zhang" <zhangwen at cse.ohio-state.edu> Cc: <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Thursday, August

Hi Quentin, I have rerun the test case on a recent commit, so the numbers have changed. There are also now a few more basic blocks very small basic blocks in the function, and therefore there are some slight differences. I tried to go back to earlier commits, without success for some reason... This is however very similar, except that there becomes two COPYs back to sibling value after the loop.

Wenbin Zhang wrote: > I'll try the trunk, as well as check my code again. If indeed it's not > fixed, I'll try to post a triggering case here. > Thanks for the advice~ > Did you run the -mergereturn pass (it might also be called UnifyExitNodes in the source code)? This is the pass that ensures that each function has exactly one basic block that returns control to the

On 10/10/13 10:43 AM, Hongxu Chen wrote: > Hi, this question might be a bit silly: apart from the language > reference(http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#switch-instruction) page, are > there additional rules for a regular llvm frontend to generate llvm IRs? > > There are a few cases that I got from clang/llvm-gcc/dragonegg when > compiling *C* source code into llvm IR: > >

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:06 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 10/10/13 10:43 AM, Hongxu Chen wrote: > >> Hi, this question might be a bit silly: apart from the language >> reference(http://llvm.org/**docs/LangRef.html#switch-**instruction<http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#switch-instruction>) >> page, are >> there additional rules

Hi Jonas, Thanks for your patience. After spending some time looking at the additional output you gave me, I agree that your fix is the right one. I was worried that this problem may arise because we were spilling not real user, but in fact what I thought was the problem is an optimization we could do :). See my comments inlined for a few nitpicks before you commit. Thanks again, -Quentin On

Hi, I'm having problems with the LoopIdiomRegognizer crashing on me with An asserting value handle still pointed to this value! UNREACHABLE executed at ../lib/IR/Value.cpp:695! If I remove AU.addPreserved<LoopInfoWrapperPass>(); or AU.addPreserved<AAResultsWrapperPass>(); everything goes well. The C-code triggering this is void foo(int a[10][10]) { int i, j,

> > > Conceptually, the LiveDebugValues data flow analysis should be using > three-valued logic arranged in a lattice > > ⊥ (uninitialized / don't know) > / \ > true false (is (not) available) > > where join(x, ⊥) = x, otherwise it behaves like boolean &. > > All debug variable values are initialized to the bottom element first. > After

Hi, Found CloneBasicBlock utility only does the cloning without any remapping. Consider below example: Input block: sw.epilog: ; preds = %sw.bb20, %sw.bb15, %sw.bb10, %sw.bb6, %sw.bb2, %sw.bb, %while.body, %if.end29 %no_final.1 = phi i32 [ %no_final.055, %while.body ], [ 1, %if.end29 ], [ %no_final.055, %sw.bb20 ], [ %no_final.055, %sw.bb15 ], [

Hi Haicheng, Originally I ran into this on our out-of-tree target but I managed to reproduce the crash on X86 as well now: build-all/bin/opt -S -sroa -loop-rotate -loop-deletion -licm -loop-idiom ../llvm/bugpoint-reduced-simplified.i8+.ll gives: While deleting: void % An asserting value handle still pointed to this value! UNREACHABLE executed at ../lib/IR/Value.cpp:696! 0 opt

Hi, I want to insert a conditional branch in the middle of a basic block. To that end, I am doing these steps: (1) Split the basic block: bb->splitBasicBlock() (2) Remove the old terminator: succ->removePredecessor(bb) bb->getTerminator()->getParent() (3) Adding a new terminator: BranchInst::Create(ifTrue, ifFalse, cnd, "", bb); That seems to work, but later passes

I want to do the following: suppose the program structure: bb / \ bb1 bb2 \ / bb3

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Brian West <bnwest at rice.edu> wrote: > Here is the patch for the new Operator Strength Reduction optimization > pass that I have written.  The bulk of the code is in > > lib/Transforms/Scalar/OperatorStrengthReduce.cpp > > The algorithm finds reduction opportunities in both array accesses and > explicit multiplications within loops.

I have what appears to be a bug in LLVM... I'm deeply hesitant to label it a bug, given my lack of experience with LLVM, but the behaviour of this fragment strongly suggests a bug. In particular, compiling and running this fragment using a fresh SVN build yields this stderr: uccello:/tmp clements$ lli a.out.bc 0 lli 0x005e72b6 char const* std::find<char const*,