similar to: [LLVMdev] Self-referential instruction from jump threading

Hi Hal, > After investigating PR14133, I've discovered that jump threading can output self-referential instructions: > %inc.us = add nsw i32 %inc.us, 1 such instructions are valid in unreachable basic blocks. > At least in the test case for that bug report, the relevant code is later deleted (perhaps it is unreachable), and so this does not cause a problem. Unfortunately, when

Hal Finkel wrote: > Hello, > > After investigating PR14133, I've discovered that jump threading can output self-referential instructions: > %inc.us = add nsw i32 %inc.us, 1 > > At least in the test case for that bug report, the relevant code is later deleted (perhaps it is unreachable), and so this does not cause a problem. Unfortunately, when vectorization is enabled, this

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > To: "Katya Romanova" <Katya_Romanova at playstation.sony.com>, "Nick Lewycky" <nlewycky at google.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu, "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>,

On 25 February 2015 at 10:58, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Rafael Espíndola > <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Maybe. >> > My view is the ideal is either no-unreachable code, or unreachable >> > blocks >> > only contain terminators. >> >> I am

On 24 February 2015 at 02:05, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > Will try to reply to the larger thread again soon, but a quick reply on a > bit of a tangent... > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >> 2. Should unreachable code be allowed to contain nonsense (like >> instructions that depend on

>> all the zero paths from entry to %a pass by %b. > > > That is a graph-wise definition, sure. > So, this is an interesting definition, and maybe this is part of the source > of the problem. > > For SSA, at least GCC requires that both "definition block dominates use > block" (which would be true here), *and* > that "definition appears before use in

Hi all - I am having some trouble figuring out how to model self-referential entities in Rails. I have a "group" model, which can have 0 or more "group" objects or 0 or more "user" objects. I tried creating a subgroup table that has a parent_group_id and a child_group_id as foreign keys but can''t figure out how to create the mapping in my ruby model

Hello all. I am trying to create a self-referential has_many :through. I used the following site as a guide http://blog.hasmanythrough.com/articles/2006/04/21/self-referential-through but it still doesn''t appear to be working. I have two models. Person and Relationship. A person has many contacts (Which is another person) through relationships class Person < ActiveRecord::Base

Hello List, I created a self-referential many-to-many relationship (as described in the book Rails recipe #18), where I have a model that has many-to-many relationships with itself. In this case, it''s person who can become friends. The join table looks like this: mysql> select * from friends_people; +-----------+-----------+-----------+ | person_id | friend_id | confirmed |

Hey guys, I could use some advice on a special case of a function pointer as a formal argument. I would like the function pointer type to contain the actual signature of the function, i.e. not a pointer to var args function. This becomes an issue when I have a function which can take a pointer to itself as an argument... our terminology for this is "a recursive procedure". That is, of

On 02/25/2015 10:41 AM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: >>> all the zero paths from entry to %a pass by %b. >> >> That is a graph-wise definition, sure. >> So, this is an interesting definition, and maybe this is part of the source >> of the problem. >> >> For SSA, at least GCC requires that both "definition block dominates use >> block" (which

Ether, Sounds great! Please keep in mind that, eventually, we'll also want to configure those options from TLI (or something similar). The patch looks good to me. -Hal On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 23:54:18 +0800 Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Hal, > > I add a function named "vectorizeBasicBlock" which allow users to > perform basic block

Hi Hal, I add a function named "vectorizeBasicBlock" which allow users to perform basic block vectoirzation inside their pass. But i am not sure whether i missed something as no one use the function right now (But it will be used by Polly sometimes later[1]). In addition, we (tobi and me) also want to make the vectorizer being configured command line flags. To achieve this, we are

With the help of the Rails Recipes have got a self-referential HABTM relationship working, but I''m really struggling with getting a new entry from a form accepted. i should say here that the form is also submitting info for the join table too. So in my model I have: class Type < ActiveRecord::Base has_and_belongs_to_many :subtypes, :class_name => ''Type'',

I have been trying to model a labeled graph using ActiveRecord (trunk version). Basically, I have a ''Node'' model which represents a node linking to other nodes. Links (aka edges) are labeled (i.e., have a ''label'' attribute and other behavior). Thus I decided to model edges as an ''Edge'' model and use a ''has_many :trough''

Hi, I''m having a little trouble figuring out how to make a self- referential HABTM bi-directional. I have a Employee class. Each employee can have a couple of bosses, who are also employees. The employee class has the following HABTM: has_and_belongs_to_many :bosses, :class_name => "Employee", :join_table => "bosses_courses", :association_foreign_key =>

Whatever we end up deciding, I think we do need to preserve the ability of a language frontend to generate complete garbage in the form of unreachable code. If we decide to move in the direction of disallowing the production of unreachable code, we need to write a canonicalization pass that runs first thing in the pipeline. A frontend should be able to produce unreachable code. This

When looking into https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24866, I discovered that the root cause of the crash is that I was expecting every basic block to have a corresponding Node in the dominator tree. Apparently, the "while.end" basic block in the example does not have a Node in the Dominator Tree. Can anyone tell me if this is expected? If so, under what circumstances?

Here''s a simplistic model class. class Person < ActiveRecord::Base has_and_belongs_to_many :relatives, :class_name => ''Person'', :join_table => ''relatives'', :foreign_key => ''from_id'', :association_foreign_key => ''to_id'' has_and_belongs_to_many :brothers, :class_name =>

Hello, I have code containing conditions and loops. Hence some BB execution are determined at run time depending on condition. Now I want to count only those BB that are always executed irrespective of condition result means reachable. and their execution is evident at compile time. How to do this? Please help Thank You Regards -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was