similar to: [LLVMdev] Does the pass -postdomfrontier exist?

On 07/13/2012 04:30 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi, > >> I found the -postdomfrontier pass in *llvm*.org/docs/Passes.html, but >> 'opt' does not accept it. I could not find the relevant codes in >> PostDominance.cpp in SVN trunk, but I found some relevant codes here >> http://opensource.apple.com/source/clang/clang-137/src/lib/Analysis/PostDominators.cpp.

Hi shadowkernel, > I searched the archives and found > http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/post-dominance-frontier-fix-td10221.html > http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/Is-there-a-control-dependence-graph-builder-td35919.html#a35921 > http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/post-dominance-frontier-td6783.html > > It seems none of them are relevant. Could you give me more hints about

> I found the -postdomfrontier pass in *llvm*.org/docs/Passes.html, but > 'opt' does not accept it. I could not find the relevant codes in > PostDominance.cpp in SVN trunk, but I found some relevant codes here > http://opensource.apple.com/source/clang/clang-137/src/lib/Analysis/PostDominators.cpp. LLVM 3.0 release note said postdomfrontier had been removed [1].

Hi, > I found the -postdomfrontier pass in *llvm*.org/docs/Passes.html, but > 'opt' does not accept it. I could not find the relevant codes in > PostDominance.cpp in SVN trunk, but I found some relevant codes here > http://opensource.apple.com/source/clang/clang-137/src/lib/Analysis/PostDominators.cpp. > > > I am wondering why this pass is removed and what should I

Hi Guys, I saw in the API that DominanceFrontier has been deprecated. Is this for real? I have read the computational issues but shouldn't that be left to the users of llvm? My concern is I am writing a Control Dependence module that uses Dominance-Frontier information. Getting rid of Dominance Frontiers will put me in a tight spot. George -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

George Baah <georgebaah at gmail.com> writes: > Hi Guys, > > I saw in the API that DominanceFrontier has been deprecated. Is this > for real? > I have read the computational issues but shouldn't that be left to the > users of llvm? > My concern is I am writing a Control Dependence module that uses > Dominance-Frontier information. > Getting rid of Dominance

Hi, I found that LLVM 3.1 says Dominance frontier is deprecated. Can anyone please tell me, if there is any replacement for Dominance frontier & Postdominance frontier in LLVM? What are the options if we need to use them? Thanks, Swarup. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, I've been thinking about how to keep the line number with the llvm transform/Analysis passes. Basically, I agree with Chris's notes ( http://www.nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/DebugInfoImprovements.txt), and I will follow his way to turn on the line number information when optimization enabled. Here is a detailed proposal: 1. Introduction At the time of this writing, LLVM's

Hi, In browsing through the LLVM source, I don't currently see an implementation for a control dependence graph builder. Am I overlooking something? It doesn't look like LLVM currently provides a way to build the post-dominance frontier of the reverse CFG, either. Dominators.h mentions forward dominators, but I believe all this is referring to is dominators as opposed to post-dominators,

Joshua, David much appreciate your quick help! What I am actually doing is statically tracing values. If one of the traced values is part of a condition (e.g. in an if statement) all instructions in the then and else part are also traced. The automatic tracing of instructions however needs to stop when I hit the first instruction after the if statement (same for switch). Dominators seem to be a

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Mark Lacey<superoptimizer at gmail.com> wrote: > In browsing through the LLVM source, I don't currently see an implementation > for a control dependence graph builder. Am I overlooking something? No, I don't think there is one. I think an implementation would be welcome if you're willing to contribute one. > It doesn't look like

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > > Try PostDominators.h. > Yes, I seemed to have blanked out there for minute and thought I needed something other than the post-dominance frontier. Mark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi folks, For the past month I’ve been working on improving the DominatorTree and PostDominatorTree in LLVM. The RFC that explains the motivations and plans can be found here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-June/114045.html . Here’s a short summary of what changed upstream since posting it: - We switched from the Simple Lengauer-Tarjan algorithm for computing dominators

Hello, I was wondering whether or not some behaviour that I am seeing is expected behaviour and that it has been designed like this, or not. A dominator relation is given by "if A dominates B", then all paths to B go through A. For example, take the CFG below (which is a directed graph (couldn’t make the arrow heads but ok.): A / \ B C \ / D | E We can construct

That looks like it does a preorder depth first traversal (I think). I'm looking for postorder. Is there a trivial transform between the two? (I don't know one.) Am I wrong about the preorder/postorder? If not, anything lurking for postorder traversal? Thanks, Dan On Apr 13, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Apr 13, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Daniel M Gessel wrote:

This is release_50 branch of git, sha1: f1d5723be3f9456a6b16cdf687847ac2918846de Using gcc 7.2.0 from homebrew. $ CC=/usr/local/opt/gcc/bin/x86_64-apple-darwin16.7.0-gcc-7 CXX=/usr/local/opt/gcc/bin/x86_64-apple-darwin16.7.0-g++-7 cmake .. -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/Users/andy/local/llvm5 -DCMAKE_PREFIX_PATH=/Users/andy/local/llvm5 $ make VERBOSE=1 [ 92%] Linking CXX

Hi there, I wrote a pass for my (language)backend, but llc can't load it. I get the following error message: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Error opening '/home/nico/build/Release/lib/foo.dylib': Can't open :/ home/nico/build/Release/lib/foo.dylib: dlopen(/home/nico/build/Release/ lib/foo.dylib, 9): Symbol not found:

Hi Everyone, I am new to LLVM and I was wondering whether there is an implementation of PDG (program dependence graph) in the community. I do not want to re-invent the wheel :). Thanks. George -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080110/7b843c33/attachment.html>

Hi all, Does anyone know how to recreate the DominanceFronter and PostDominanceFrontier structures using the API of the latest release? To my knowledge, these are needed to implement a PRE pass (as done in the past<https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/tags/RELEASE_13/lib/Transforms/Scalar/PRE.cpp>), but they were removed a while ago for efficiency reasons. Is there a better way to

Hi, I'm not able to answer your question. I'm wondering if you can create your own if it is just your own hobby project, or a project that you don't have to commit to the main repository. Creating DominatorFrontier seems to be expensive. However, if you are using bit-vector to represent a basic-block-set, I guess it can be done in linear time in practice. Following is the