similar to: [LLVMdev] Question about method CodeExtractor::severSplitPHINodes

There might be a misuse of DominatorTree::splitBasicBlock in CodeExtractor.cpp, line 145. Header is splited into two (OldPred->NewBB). Line 145 updates the dominator tree by calling DT->splitBasicBlock(NewBB). I think it should be DT->splitBasicBlock(OldPred). When I tried to extract a code region whose header has 2 successors, my pass crashed. It was because header (or OldPred) is the

On Dec 31, 2010, at 11:20 AM, Vu Le wrote: > There might be a misuse of DominatorTree::splitBasicBlock in CodeExtractor.cpp, line 145. > Header is splited into two (OldPred->NewBB). > > Line 145 updates the dominator tree by calling DT->splitBasicBlock(NewBB). > I think it should be DT->splitBasicBlock(OldPred). > > When I tried to extract a code region whose

I forgot to cc llvmdev. Here is my original message. I'm a bit confused on DominatorTreeBase::Split() ( http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/Dominators_8h_source.html#l00229) If a basic block A splits into A->B, when I call Split(), which is NewBB? A or B? The semantics shows that NewBB is the newly split basic block B. But the assertion at line 229 doesn't seem right. 00229

Hello, The CodeExtractor contains a std::set<BasicBlock*> to keep track of the blocks to extract. Iterators on this set are not deterministic, and so the functions that are generated are not (the order of the inputs/outputs can change). The attached patch uses a SetVector instead. Ok to apply ? Thanks, Julien -- Julien Lerouge PGP Key Id: 0xB1964A62 PGP Fingerprint: 392D 4BAD DB8B CE7F

Hi all, I have encountered the following instruction: %.0.i = phi i8* [ %9, %8 ], [ %11, %10 ] How can I get the %8 and %10? I'm using http://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1PHINode.html as a reference but I cannot understand how to do that. Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi llvmdev, I've noticed that there is no unary operator in LLVM. For unary operator such as Neg or Or operator, the IR builder just creates a binary operation with one dummy operand, 01823 <http://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1BinaryOperator.html#a073c092ce74a122e898e435e60e84599> BinaryOperator <http://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1BinaryOperator.html>

hi, > Users generally expect a unique set of exit blocks, but don't make any > strong assumption. The worst that can happen is missed optimization or > redundant analysis. In most cases, the loop is in LoopSimplifyForm, so it's > probably not a problem in practice. > > > Another thing I should mention. The iteration order of ExitBlocks is > important. In llvm,

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Wei Dang > Subject: [LLVMdev] Question about method CodeExtractor::severSplitPHINodes > In the implementation of serverSplitPHINodes(), why it only checks the > first PHI node for possible multiple inputs from outside the region to > extract. There could be more than one PHI nodes in

> From: Wei Dang [mailto:jacdang at gmail.com] > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Question about method CodeExtractor::severSplitPHINodes > Please excuse me if I'm not supposed to reply to all. You should do reply-all, to make sure the list sees all of the thread. > Are you saying all PHI nodes are required to include all its predecessor blocks > no matter they have input or not?

Hi, I found a problem in CodeExtractor::severSplitPHINodes() <CodeExtractor.cpp>. The algorithm first separates the header block into two, one containing only PHI nodes and the other containing the remaining non-PHI nodes. The variable NewBB holds the pointer to the latter half block. Later, it tries to update DT information. if (DT) DT->splitBlock(NewBB); In splitBlock, it checks

Thanks for reply Chuck. Please excuse me if I'm not supposed to reply to all. Are you saying all PHI nodes are required to include all its predecessor blocks no matter they have input or not? What about successor blocks? Are they optional if they don't provide inputs? BTW, where should I look at to verify this, the mem2reg.cpp & PromoteMemToReg.cpp? Thanks a lot. On Sat, Mar 2, 2013

On Nov 19, 2008, at 7:41 AM, Jack Tzu-Han Hung wrote: > Hi, > > I found a problem in CodeExtractor::severSplitPHINodes() > <CodeExtractor.cpp>. > > The algorithm first separates the header block into two, one > containing only PHI nodes and the other containing the remaining non- > PHI nodes. The variable NewBB holds the pointer to the latter half > block.

Hi Devang, Thanks for your reply. But if you look at the comment of BasicBlock::splitBasicBlock(), it says that "...an unconditional branch is added to the new BB, and the rest of the instructions in the BB are moved to the newBB, including the old terminator." So, the terminator of the newBB is exactly the same as the terminator of the oldBB. IF the oldBB has multiple successors,

I am primarily interested in phi nodes and their induction variables, in ValueTracking file there is an analysis of them, but if the upper bound is inf, it is not working? 2017-08-07 11:41 GMT+02:00 Anastasiya Ruzhanskaya < anastasiya.ruzhanskaya at frtk.ru>: > So, it is not supported to determine by this instruction : %cmp = icmp slt > i32 %i.03, 99, > that %i.03 = phi i32 [ 0,

On Apr 23, 2012, at 10:31 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 19, 2012, at 10:43 PM, xiaoming gu <xiaoming.gu at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, all. I'm using void LoopBase::getExitBlocks (SmallVectorImpl< BlockT * > &ExitBlocks) const to get all >> exit blocks for a loop. The problem I find with this API is that it returns