similar to: [LLVMdev] Build Failures

Something must be wrong, more probable on my side. So the C source code is unchanged, I just did another experiment to first extract all the GEPs in the code, and call AliasAnalysis::alias on each pair of GEPs. Here is the code: AliasAnalysis &AA = getAnalysis<AliasAnalysis>(); TargetData &TD = getAnalysis<TargetData>(); for (Module::iterator it = M.begin();

All, As of today, LLVM will be built with the -Woverloaded-virtual option turned on. This means that warnings will be generated for ambiguous overloads of C++ sub-classes. Typically this means you forgot to override an overloaded virtual in a subclass. Currently, LLVM is "overloaded virtual" clean. We intend to keep it that way. If you are modifying LLVM and start to see warning

> On 2015-Jun-13, at 09:12, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > Greetings all, > > I'm working on refactoring the alias analysis layers to remove the usage of analysis groups and make the logic sharable between old and new pass managers, and I have a

Just want to test out the LLVM's AliasAnalysis::getModRefInfo API. The input C code is very simple: void foo(int *a, int *b) { for(int i=0; i<10; i++) b[i] = a[i]*a[i]; } int main() { int a[10]; int b[10]; for(int i=0; i<10; i++) a[i] = i; foo(a,b); return 0; } Obviously, for "foo", it only reads from array "a" and only writes to array

Duncan, thanks for your answer! > In order to perform this transform the optimizers would have to work out > that sample does not modify any global state.  This cannot be done without > knowing the definition of sample, but you only provide a declaration. Which is why I am trying to supply this additional information in a custom alias analysis pass, but it doesn't seem to work. (The

I was reading the code in AliasAnalysis.cpp and happened to notice what looks like a bug. See the line marked by '*' below: AliasAnalysis::ModRefResult AliasAnalysis::getModRefInfo(const VAArgInst *V, const Location &Loc) { // If the va_arg address cannot alias the pointer in question, then the // specified memory cannot be accessed by the va_arg. if (!alias(getLocation(V),

i am sorry, i get this error: opt: /home/llvm/src/include/llvm/Support/CallSite.h:87: ValTy* llvm::CallSiteBase<FunTy, ValTy, UserTy, InstrTy, CallTy, InvokeTy, IterTy>::getCalledValue() const [with FunTy = const llvm::Function, ValTy = const llvm::Value, UserTy = const llvm::User, InstrTy = const llvm::Instruction, CallTy = const llvm::CallInst, InvokeTy = const llvm::InvokeInst, IterTy =

there is an if-else code in X86DisassemblerDecoder.c that does exactly the same thing on both paths. so this patch removes the redundant path. thanks, Jun diff --git a/lib/Target/X86/Disassembler/X86DisassemblerDecoder.c b/lib/Target/X86/Disassembler/X86DisassemblerDecoder.c index 20e61da..3932ea1 100644 --- a/lib/Target/X86/Disassembler/X86DisassemblerDecoder.c +++

Hi, I'm having a problem with GVN removing a load instruction that I think is needed. Dump before GVN: *** IR Dump Before Global Value Numbering *** ; Function Attrs: minsize optsize define i16 @TEST__MAIN(i16 %argc.13.par, i16** %argv.14.par) #0 { %buf.17 = alloca [10 x i16], align 1 %_tmp30 = getelementptr inbounds [10 x i16], [10 x i16]* %buf.17, i16 0, i16 0, !dbg !22 call

Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com> writes: >> > Which regression tests are failing with LLVM 2.8 and GCC 4.4.x? >> >> Too many to list. > > Can you give me 2 or 3 examples (that fail with LLVM 2.8 and GCC 4.4 > but work with LLVM 2.8 and GCC 4.3), also I'd like to know how they > fail. > If I have some time I'll check with my 4.4 to see if

On Tuesday 16 May 2006 03:19, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 15 May 2006, Nai Xia wrote: > > > In other words, if I only use -steens-aa and the data_XXXs are all > > external global variables( and so inComplete ), > > Sounds right! > > > the call to printf will > > make the same effect, which I have tested it. > > > > Am I right ? :) >

Hi there! In the x86 disassembler I noticed an if-statement with a duplicated branch. Are these intended to be identical? Best regards, Nicolas Kaiser -- diff -ur llvm-2.8.orig/lib/Target/X86/Disassembler/X86DisassemblerDecoder.c llvm-2.8/lib/Target/X86/Disassembler/X86DisassemblerDecoder.c --- llvm-2.8.orig/lib/Target/X86/Disassembler/X86DisassemblerDecoder.c 2010-05-06 22:59:00.000000000 +0200

On 10/09/2017 03:57 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > FWIW: Bootstrap is probably not a good test of this, there are bugs > filed where we end up with tons of loads and stores to test against > each other. That's actually fairly rare in bootstrap, as you can see. > Let me get you some test cases. > > My guess is that we should go with mustmod. I agree. -Hal > > >

Hi, This came up in https://reviews.llvm.org/D38569, and I'd like some input on what's the best way to get alias and mod-ref info without having two alias calls. A couple of ideas: (a) Extend the getModRefInfo interface (+getModRefBehavior, +gerArgModRefInfo) to return a pair {ModRefInfo, AliasResult}. The AliasResult can be optional based on an argument e.g.: struct MRI_AR {

Yes, this is odd. On my clang.bc Without: 2.2967 ( 53.8%) 0.0242 ( 26.4%) 2.3210 ( 53.2%) 2.3227 ( 53.2%) Memory SSA 2.3364 ( 53.7%) 0.0246 ( 25.7%) 2.3610 ( 53.1%) 2.3636 ( 53.1%) Memory SSA 2.3353 ( 54.0%) 0.0258 ( 27.0%) 2.3611 ( 53.4%) 2.3632 ( 53.3%) Memory SSA With two getModRefInfo calls: 3.0302 ( 58.8%) 0.0328 ( 29.9%) 3.0630 ( 58.2%) 3.0858 ( 58.2%)

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > FWIW: Bootstrap is probably not a good test of this, there are bugs filed > where we end up with tons of loads and stores to test against each other. > That's actually fairly rare in bootstrap, as you can see. > Let me get you some test cases. > SG, thanks! > > My guess is that we

On Jun 29, 2010, at 9:59 AM, Will Dietz wrote: > Hi all, > > While working on a loadable Alias Analysis module pass, I'm running > into the following issue: > > I'm finding my pass queried for results after it has had > 'releaseMemory' called on it and its dependencies, but before > runOnModule is called again (on my pass or its deps). As you might >

I'm trying to understand what is the result we'd seek in the example in D38569 (pasting here for quick access) double f(double a) { double b; double c,d; double (*fp) (double) __attribute__ ((const)); /* Partially redundant call */ if (a < 2.0) { fp = sin; c = fp (a); } else { c = 1.0; fp = cos; } d = fp (a);

+ a few others. After following this rabbit hole a bit, there are a lot of mutually recursive calls, etc, that may or may not do the right thing with vectors of pointers. I can fix *this* particular bug with the attached patch. However, it's mostly papering over stuff. Nothing seems to know what to do with a memorylocation that is a vector of pointers. They all expect memorylocation to be a

Hi all, While working on a loadable Alias Analysis module pass, I'm running into the following issue: I'm finding my pass queried for results after it has had 'releaseMemory' called on it and its dependencies, but before runOnModule is called again (on my pass or its deps). As you might expect, this makes my pass rather unhappy (and I think correctly so). This happens with LICM