similar to: [LLVMdev] Get underlying object for Machine level memory operation

You can use the GetUnderlyingObjects function (notice the S at the end of the name) to collect zero or more underlying objects. This method is similar to GetUnderlyingObject except that it can look through phi and select instructions and return multiple objects. On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:15 AM, rahul <rahul3527 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I am writing a pass that works at

Hi, I am trying to do dependence analysis (loop dependences) on machine code. But, scalar evolution doesn't work as expected (like at IR level - opt pass). I am not getting enough clue as to how to proceed.. One naive way of getting the dependence information can be - Do dependence analysis at IR level and attach the information as meta data. And then use this information at machine code

On Mar 15, 2013, at 3:18 AM, rahul <rahul3527 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I am trying to do dependence analysis (loop dependences) on machine code. > But, scalar evolution doesn't work as expected (like at IR level - opt pass). > I am not getting enough clue as to how to proceed.. > > One naive way of getting the dependence information can be > - Do

I just want to know ,how can I developing a LLVM Pass on Windows' visual studio? I can develop a Pass on linux,but I can't do it on windows. 2013/3/15 <llvmdev-request at cs.uiuc.edu> > Send LLVMdev mailing list submissions to > llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >

Hi Rahul, Thanks for your interest! Our work does not attempt to make any significant contributions to alias analysis, and acts as a client to existing LLVM AA. Furthermore, the options passed to the AESOP frontend scripts are obeyed at compile time, but at link time certain transformations occur unconditionally. Here, AESOP has actually thwarted your experiment by performing inlining just

On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 03:01:15PM +0800, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) wrote: > Hi Timothy, > > > We would like to inform the community that we're releasing a version of our research compiler, "AESOP", developed at UMD using LLVM. AESOP is a distance-vector-based autoparallelizing compiler for shared-memory machines. The source code and some further information is available at

Hi all, One of the reasons the Livermore Loops couldn't be vectorized is that it was using global structures to hold the arrays. Today, I'm investigating why is that so and how to fix it. My investigation brought me to LoopVectorizationLegality::canVectorizeMemory(): if (WriteObjects.count(*it)) { DEBUG(dbgs() << "LV: Found a possible read/write reorder:"

Hi Timothy, Today I happened to download the code and do some experiments. I actually wanted to see how you handle inter-procedure alias analysis. So, I set inline threshold to zero and tried out following example =============================================== #define N 1024 void func(double *A, double *B) { int i; for (i=1; i<N-2; i++) { B[i] = A[i] + i*3; } } void func1(double

If I understand you correctly, conceptually you want two different objects to be returned for Foo.bl and Foo.al? Here is my take on this (take this with a grain of salt, Dan is the expert on this): http://llvm.org/docs/GetElementPtr.html#what-happens-if-an-array-index-is-out-of-bounds LLVM's semantic allows for arrays to be accessed out of bounds - this allows you to walk from the first

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Abhinash Jain <omnia at mailinator.com>wrote: > > But before becoming part of the expressions, the registers will actually > fetch some value from memory, through Load operations. > This is not true; the virtual registers need not be loaded from memory. You may find <

> in LLVM IR, the operands of most expression are registers, so don't have a memory address. Yes I agree with your this statement, But before becoming part of the expressions, the registers will actually fetch some value from memory, through Load operations. as shown in example "r3=r1+r2" will be the expression, where registers such as r1 and r2 contains (fetch) the values from

Hello all. I'm investigating a problem with "Machine Instruction Scheduling" that is rooted in incorrect alias information. Things go wrong in the "Merge disjoint stack slots"[1] pass when a store instruction fails to get updated after its stack slot is merged. As a result, when "Machine Instruction Scheduling" runs, it incorrectly re-orders the store and a

I am writing a llvm pass which inserts some code in a function. In code generation, I want to insert code for a function call. But for this, I need to get function object from list of functions available with Module. When I try to get the function object by specifying function name, it returns null. I suppose this happens because clang removes function prototypes if the function is not called in

Hi Matthew, > I'm investigating a problem with "Machine Instruction Scheduling" that is rooted > in incorrect alias information. > > Things go wrong in the "Merge disjoint stack slots"[1] pass when a store > instruction fails to get updated after its stack slot is merged. As a result, > when "Machine Instruction Scheduling" runs, it incorrectly

Dan Gohman wrote: > On Nov 4, 2009, at 6:43 AM, Hans Wennborg wrote: > >> Here is another change I'd like to suggest to the BasicAliasAnalysis. >> >> LLVM fails to remove the dead store in the following code: >> >> %t = type { i32 } >> >> define void @f(%t* noalias nocapture %stuff ) { >> %p = getelementptr inbounds %t* %stuff, i32 0,

After discussing with Nick Lewycky in the IRC channel, here comes a less aggressive patch. We were worried that a constant pointer could alias with a GlobalValue. Also, if one pointer could be a GlobalValue and the other a GlobalAlias with the GlobalValue as aliasee. However, I was not able to produce a test where this happens wihout the getUnderlyingObject() returning the same value. It

I notice that GetUnderlyingObject has a few checks, but alloca isn't one of them. Then it fall backs to SimplifyInstruction which doesn't know about alloca so falls back to just trying to constant fold it. This seems a little silly since I assume alloca can't be constant folded. Should we just detect this early in GetUnderlyingObject and stop? ~Craig -------------- next part

Yes, i mixed up two thing that is confusing you. Well., I did nothing change on the server. And the smb.conf file is shared here is only from server. Do you need any more file output here. On Tuesday, September 4, 2018, Rowland Penny via samba < samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 00:21:19 +0530 > Vivek Patil <vivek.patil at forgeahead.io> wrote: > >>

How to get memory address of all operands which constitutes an expression ? eg. a=b+c; (want to know the memory address of b and c)...... Since I want this at run time, So at assembly level this expression will become something like as follows:- Load r1, M[b] Load r2, M[c] r3=r1+r2 store M[a],r3 Now what i want to do is that, at every store instruction, I should get the memory address of all

ubuntu at Ubunut:~$ sudo samba-tool dbcheck Checking 264 objects Checked 264 objects (0 errors) On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 2:33 PM Rowland Penny via samba < samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 08:41:27 +0530 > Vivek Patil <vivek.patil at forgeahead.io> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > No, I have nothing install or update anything on the server. I