similar to: [LLVMdev] Remove an instruction through Dead Code Elimination pass of llvm

Hi Adarsh, On 11/02/12 09:47, Adarsh Konchady wrote: > My pass in LLVM generates an IR like this > %5 = icmp eq i32 %4, 0 > %7 = or i1 %5, %5 > ;. . . > Since the 'or' instruction is actually not needed(dead code), I replaced all > occurences of %7 with %5. > Now, the 'or' instruction should get deleted. How can I call Dead Code > Elimination pass

Sir, I was going through the following link about Array dependence analysis in Old Nabble where they mentioned about some work going on array dependence analysis. It was posted in 2008. Array-Dependency-Analysis<http://old.nabble.com/Array-Dependence-Analysis-td16073995.html> I need to know whether array dependence analysis has been implemented in LLVM. Regards, Adarsh Konchady

Sir, I am new to LLVM. Please suggest a good IDE for debugging LLVM. Yours faithfully, Adarsh Konchady -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110722/d954d107/attachment.html>

Sir, We are interested in implementing Type Based Alias Analysis(TBAA) in LLVM. This is prescribed as one of the projects in the Open Projects list of the LLVM website. One of the links in your page is not working. I am giving the link below http://www.ice.gelato.org/oct07/pres_pdf/gelato_ICE07oct_aliasing_isaev_intel.pdf Kindly send me any additional resources and suggestions you have on this

Initially, tt was not a problem with the verifier, we were just inserting a wrong instruction in our pass. Also we were able to figure out the error you pointed out and our pass is running as intended!!! Thanks a lot. On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Adarsh Yoga wrote: > >> I was able to solve that >> > > What was wrong? I

I was able to solve that but still crashing with the same error saying "Unreachable executed". I have attached the output with this mail. Thanks in advance. On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Adarsh Yoga wrote: > >> Yes. Intially the pass was crashing when the module when the module >> verifier was running. I was able to

Adarsh Yoga wrote: > I was able to solve that What was wrong? I wasn't able to reproduce it and would still like to teach the verifier whatever it missed. but still crashing with the same error saying > "Unreachable executed". I have attached the output with this mail. This time you've got: %1 = load i32** getelementptr inbounds ({ i32* }* @structobj, i64 0, i32

Yes. Intially the pass was crashing when the module when the module verifier was running. I was able to solve that and now it is crashing when the bit writer pass is running. On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote: > On 5 May 2010 17:12, Adarsh Yoga <ayoga at umail.iu.edu> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I've written a pass

Adarsh Yoga wrote: > Yes. Intially the pass was crashing when the module when the module > verifier was running. I was able to solve that and now it is crashing > when the bit writer pass is running. The output is wrong in @thread_pool_init: <stdin>:44:27: error: '%4' defined with type 'i1' %5 = getelementptr i32* %4, i64 %indvar ; <i32*> [#uses=1]

On 5 May 2010 17:12, Adarsh Yoga <ayoga at umail.iu.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > I've written a pass that basically does some code transformations to > enable parallel execution of loops. After the transformation llvm runs > BitCode Writer pass , which is aborting with Unreachable Executed error. > I have attached the input llvm code and the output llvm code for reference.

Hi, I've written a pass that basically does some code transformations to enable parallel execution of loops. After the transformation llvm runs BitCode Writer pass , which is aborting with Unreachable Executed error. I have attached the input llvm code and the output llvm code for reference. I am stuck at this problem for a few days now. Please let me know if you are able to find anything

Hi, Please let me know how to follow my pass in LLVM by Dead Code Elimination pass of LLVM. getAnalysisUsage(...) only allows me to run passes before my pass. I want to run Dead Code Elimination pass after my pass. Regards, Adarsh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi Adarsh, to my knowledge there is no publicly available CUDA-Frontend for LLVM yet. The work of Helge Rhodin you mentioned is on the backend-side: It allows to generate PTX code from LLVM IR. It is still being maintained, although I think the currently available source code is a little outdated. There is also a PTX backend in the current version of LLVM that makes use of LLVM's

Adarsh HV wrote: > Hi, > Please let me know how to follow my pass in LLVM by Dead Code > Elimination pass of LLVM. getAnalysisUsage(...) only allows me to run > passes before my pass. I want to run Dead Code Elimination pass after my > pass. Your pass does not control that; where the PassManager is created, insert your pass, then insert the DCE pass. Nick

Hi Adarsh, > I have used the follwing command, > opt -load LLVComMan.so -ComMan -memdep -tbaa -mem2reg maptest.ll -S > What option other than -mem2reg should be included in this case to get the > right results? Does the order in which I specify the optimizations to be run > make a difference? what is in maptest.ll? Ciao, Duncan.

I have used the follwing command, opt -load LLVComMan.so -ComMan -memdep -tbaa -mem2reg maptest.ll -S What option other than -mem2reg should be included in this case to get the right results? Does the order in which I specify the optimizations to be run make a difference? Duncan Sands wrote: > > Hi Adarsh, > >> I want to check if the values a and b in the program alias.

It contains the bitcode file(without any optimization) of the below program, void map(int *a) { *a=20; } int main(){ int *a=(int *)malloc(sizeof(int)); *a=15; map(a); return 0; } I want to check if the pointer operand of each store instruction aliases with the function's arguments. I have used below code for this, virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const {

LLVM has two similar bits of infrastructure: a simplifyInstructionsInBlock function and a SimplifyInstructions pass, both intended to be lightweight “fix up this code without doing serious optimizations” functions, as far as I can tell. I don’t think either is used in a performance-sensitive place in-tree; the former is mostly called in minor places when doing CFG twiddling, and the latter seems

John, Thanks, this would work. But we are interested in obtaining the instruction that defines/allocates the value of interest. Once we obtain that we can use LoopInfo pass to check whether the basic block containing that definition instruction belongs to the loop in question. Is there a method that returns the defining instruction? Thanks, Adarsh On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:05 AM, John Criswell

Is there a way to insert a function at the start of a module rather than inserting it at the end, which happens by default? -- Adarsh Yoga Graduate Student, Computer Science Indiana University, Bloomington -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100502/30f9e9d4/attachment.html>