similar to: [LLVMdev] Instruction as Value in PHI

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > Curious, is there a pass/mechanism that exists to promote an instruction > that is a value of a PHI? > > For example, if one of the incoming values is a sub(x, y) from BB2, does > there exist something to promote this instruction back to BB2 (such that tmp > = sub(x,y)) and the PHI replaces the

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> Date: Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Updating PHI for Instruction Domination? To: Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com> Since I'm not sure which instructions I might want to replicate, would it be possible to cast the Value from "PHINode::getIncomingValue" to

I guess not since Value is a superclass of Instruction. On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> > Date: Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:36 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Updating PHI for Instruction Domination? > To: Eric Christopher <echristo at

You're creating a new path that doesn't include L. For all values defined in L and used outside of L, you need to determine the new reaching def. That's specific to your transformation and can't be automated. Once you do that, creating the phi in F is natural. -Andy On Feb 6, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > I guess not since Value is a

Dear All, Is there a pass (or set of passes) that will replace a phi whose input operands all compute the same value with an instruction that computes that value? In other words, something that will convert: define internal i32 @function(i32 %x) { ... bb1: %y = add %x, 10 ... bb2: %z = add %x, 10 ... bb3: %phi = [bb1, %y], [bb2, %z] into define internal i32 @function(i32 %x) { ... bb1: ...

Hi John, On 30/07/13 16:12, John Criswell wrote: > Dear All, > > Is there a pass (or set of passes) that will replace a phi whose input operands > all compute the same value with an instruction that computes that value? In > other words, something that will convert: > > define internal i32 @function(i32 %x) { > ... > bb1: > %y = add %x, 10 > ... > bb2: > %z

On 7/30/13 9:46 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi John, > > On 30/07/13 16:12, John Criswell wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Is there a pass (or set of passes) that will replace a phi whose >> input operands >> all compute the same value with an instruction that computes that >> value? In >> other words, something that will convert: >> >>

Hi all, is there a pass to get rid of phi-instructions in a function? There's no loop involved. I have a function approx. like this: void @func() { entry: … bb1: … bb2: … %tmp100 = phi i32 [ 0, bb1 ], [ 1, bb2 ] … %tmp101 = getelementptr …, %tmp100 tail call void @anotherfunc(…, %tmp101) ret void } I would like it to rather be something like this: void @func() { entry: … bb1: ...

Typical PHI instruction in LLVM goes like this: %P = phi i32* [%A, %BB1], [%B, %BB2] When I try to access all the source operands, only %A and %B are included. I checked the methods in instruction.h, but I didn't find any methods obtaining the label fields i.e. %BB1, %BB2. I notice that each label of a basic block is related with a value which can be referenced in 'br'

On May 22, 2014, at 3:51 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Louis Gerbarg <lgg at apple.com> wrote: > The problem that the above transform is technically illegal because “When indexing into a (optionally packed) structure, only i32 integer constants are allowed (when using a vector of indices they must all be the same

I guess I didn't have a clear question. Suppose we have BB1 and BB2 both point to BB3. BB1 has variable x. BB2 also as variable x. BB3 will have PHINode for x with 2 value from BB1 and BB2. BB1 BB2 \ / BB3 Now if BB1 and BB2 is extracted into a function (using ExtractCodeRegion), they will be replaced by a basic block called codeRepl (which has a call to the extracted

Hi all, I have a doubt on the usage of phi nodes in LLVM: if I define a value in a bb, are phi nodes needed in the blocks that are dominated by the bb where the value is defined? As an example consider the following trivial example: // BB0 A = 5; if (condition) { // BB1 B = 2; } else { // BB2 B = 1; } // BB3 is a phi node required for A in BB3? b.r., Carlo Alberto Ferraris --------------

Hi all, I am using "lm" to fit some anova factor models with interactions. The default setting for my unordered factors is "treatment". I understand the resultant "lm" coefficients for one factors, but when it comes to the interaction term, I got confused. > options()$contrasts unordered ordered "contr.treatment"

On Feb 2, 2012, at 5:13 PM, Ryan Taylor wrote: > So my best bet is to try and work in reg2mem mode and then go back to mem2reg? > I wouldn't. That sounds painful. > I'm curious, it seems though when you split a block that the phis get updated, right? Sure. There's code in splitBasicBlock to do this. It should just take a little bit of work to get what you want done.

On 01/26/2011 07:50 PM, Vu Le wrote: > I guess I didn't have a clear question. > > Suppose we have BB1 and BB2 both point to BB3. > BB1 has variable x. BB2 also as variable x. > BB3 will have PHINode for x with 2 value from BB1 and BB2. > BB1 BB2 > \ / > BB3 > > Now if BB1 and BB2 is extracted into a function > (using ExtractCodeRegion), they

Hi, I am trying to prune some uninteresting llvm ir branches, corresponding to the *if-else* condition in the source code. And here is the procedures: 1. Get the BasicBlock containing the BranchInst which has 2 successors(in order to keep consistent with the source code I am using the llvm ir without any optimizations, so SelectInst/SwitchInst/PHINode is absent), one of which should be

So my best bet is to try and work in reg2mem mode and then go back to mem2reg? I'm curious, it seems though when you split a block that the phis get updated, right? On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com> wrote: > Not that I'm aware of. > > -eric > > On Feb 2, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Ryan Taylor wrote: > > So essentially I'm

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:35 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:53 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:48 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:00 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> >>> wrote:

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

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:25 PM Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > On 7/1/19 1:38 PM, Bill Wendling via llvm-dev wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:35 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> > wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:53 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:48 PM James Y