similar to: [LLVMdev] Fwd: Create superblock in LLVM IR

On Sep 4, 2012, at 9:05 AM, Tomas Minac <minac.tomas at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > I am member of research team on our Faculty of Information Technology (university VUT in Brno Czech Republic). We use LLVM for many projects and actually we want to create system, which will be able compile and profile aplication for VLIW processors in few iterations. > We want to load

Hi Andy, thank you for your respond, On 09/06/12 21:32, Andrew Trick wrote: > > On Sep 4, 2012, at 9:05 AM, Tomas Minac <minac.tomas at gmail.com > <mailto:minac.tomas at gmail.com>> wrote: > >> >> Hello, >> >> I am member of research team on our Faculty of Information Technology >> (university VUT in Brno Czech Republic). We use LLVM for

On Sep 17, 2012, at 9:13 AM, Tomas Minac <minac.tomas at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > thank you for your respond, > > On 09/06/12 21:32, Andrew Trick wrote: >> >> On Sep 4, 2012, at 9:05 AM, Tomas Minac <minac.tomas at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I am member of research team on our Faculty

MachineBasicBlock allows for multiple terminators. Unconditional branches and returns are marked as terminators; the MIPS backend also marks conditional branches as terminators. The MachineBasicBlock then has a helper function getFirstTerminator which iterates from the first terminator to the end of the MBB. So it seems to me that an MBB is a kind of superblock, single entrance and multiple side

I've been trying to use fsck to recover a corrupted filesystem. It appears the original superblock is corrupted too, as it has an inode count of 0. When I start fsck with -b 32760, it uses the alternate superblock and proceeds. However, it restarts from the beginning a couple of times and after the second restart it doesn't use the alternate superblock, stopping instead as it can't

Hi, I am using kernel 2.6.15.4. On my system, I first created a partition with EXT3 and put some data on it. Later, I deleted the partition, and re-created another partition with the same starting block number and a higher ending block number. I intended to format it with another filesystem, but surprisingly (or maybe just to me), the superblock of the partition had not changed. I could still

Hi, LLVM community: I found basicaa seems not to tell must-not-alias for __restrict__ arguments in c/c++. It only compares two pointers and the underlying objects they point to. I wonder how clang does alias analysis for c/c++ keyword restrict. let assume we compile the following code: $cat myalias.cc float foo(float * __restrict__ v0, float * __restrict__ v1, float * __restrict__ v2, float *

Hi, Using dumpe2fs I have been able to determine that all of my alternate ext3 superblocks are corrupted (not clean), and only the primary superblock is valid, i.e. mount works and the ordered journal is applied. When the primary superblock gets flakey, i.e. the ext_attr Filesystem feature goes missing - not sure why this occurs. At this point, the mount does not apply the journal using the

Hi all, While developing compile-time instrumentation for ThreadSanitizer (http://code.google.com/p/data-race-test) I need to generate SEME regions without loop and call instructions (I'll call them superblocks hereafter, although some researchers do allow loops in their definition of superblocks). This is necessary to get the largest piece of IR in which the memory operations can be

Hi, Your problem is that the function arguments, which are makes as noalias, are not being directly used as the base objects of the array accesses: > %v0.addr = alloca float*, align 8 > %v1.addr = alloca float*, align 8 > %v2.addr = alloca float*, align 8 > %t.addr = alloca float*, align 8 ... > store float* %v0, float** %v0.addr, align 8 > store float* %v1, float** %v1.addr,

hello. had a bad day yesterday: accidentally, the first 0.5% to 1% of my ext3 partition got overwritten, can't gauge it more exactly. Geography of the partition is: size ~100 GB. block size should be 4096. => deleted are averages to 500mb - 1gb still. I don't think it is relevant, but the device itself is /dev/loop0, because there is a cryptoloop layer between the device and the

Sent from my iPhone... On Jun 25, 2013, at 8:14 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> >> >> >> On Jun 24, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Indvars should ideally preserve NSW flags whenever possible. However, >> we don't want to

Hi again, I have the following scenario: I've got a partition which has exactly 14659312 blocks: $ fdisk -l /dev/hda Disk /dev/hda: 28.5 GB, 28520497152 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 3467 cylinders Units = Zylinder of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Ger?t Boot Start End Blocks Id System (...) /dev/hda4 1643 3467 14659312+ 83 Linux (...)

----- Original Message ----- > > > > On Jun 24, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov > wrote: > > > > > Indvars should ideally preserve NSW flags whenever possible. However, > we don't want to rely on SCEV to preserve them. SCEV expressions are > implicitly reassociated and uniqued in a flow-insensitive universe > independent of the

Last time I asked here about superblocks (which we were using in the first version of ThreadSanitizer instrumentation) Tobias Grosser has suggested to use RegionInfo: did you have a look at the RegionInfo pass? It currently detects some kind of refinded SESE regions. I use them in Polly and as far as I know the Intel OpenCL SDK also uses them in some way. It is not SEME, but it may

It recently occurred to me, as I was partitioning a RAID with fdisk, that when I built the system, I was presented with a graphical utility that "magically" created the partitions. Now, using fdisk, I was reminded of being given superblocks. Although I haven't used data recovery techniques using superblocks, is there a way to retrieve the superblock numbers the OS has assigned

Hello everyone, I am working on some changes to the Hexagon VLIW PreRA scheduler, and as a part of it need to test aliasing properties of two instruction. What it boils down to is the following code: char a[20]; char s; char *p, *q; // p == &a[0]; q == &s; void test() { register char reg; s = 0; reg = p[0] + p[1]; s = q[0] + reg; return; } When I ask the question whether

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hello everyone, > >  I am working on some changes to the Hexagon VLIW PreRA scheduler, and as a > part of it need to test aliasing properties of two instruction. > What it boils down to is the following code: > > char a[20]; > char s; > char *p, *q; // p == &a[0]; q == &s; >

Hi, I am trying to understand LLVM vectorization implementation and was looking into both loop and SLP vectorization. test case 1: *int foo(int *a) {int sum = 0,i;for(i=0; i<16; i++) sum += a[i];return sum;}* This code is vectorized by loop vectorizer where we calculate scalar loop cost as 4 and vector loop cost as 2. Since vector loop cost is less and above reduction is legal to

Hi Nadav, Thanks for the quick reply !! Ok, so as of now we are lacking capability to handle flat large reductions. I did go through function vectorizeChainsInBlock() (line number 2862). In this function, we try to vectorize if we have phi nodes in the IR (several if's check for phi nodes) i.e we try to construct tree that starts at chains. Any pointers on how to join multiple trees? I