similar to: [LLVMdev] How to describe a pointer that points to All memory(include global memory, heap, stack)?

Hi, John I am building a flow sensitive intra-procedural alias analysis(without interprocedural info). So, the first thing I have to consider is where a parameter-pointer or a global-pointer might point to. Then I defined several special Virtual Memory Locations: ALL_MEMORY, GLOBAL_MEMORY, STACK_MEMORY, HEAP_MEMORY. ALL_MEMORY contains GLOBAL_MEMORY, STACK_MEMORY, HEAP_MEMORY. e.g1:

On 3/13/13 4:06 AM, Steven Su wrote: > Hello, could any one point me following question. Without any context, your question is difficult to answer. Are you building a points-to analysis and wanting to know how an alias analysis might encode the fact that a pointer could alias any other pointer? -- John T. > > e.g: > void foo(int * p) > { > *p = 0; > } >

Hi, Daniel, thank you for your advice. Yes, ALL_MEMORY points to ALL_MEMORY. We use MD(memory descriptor) to abstract a memory location.  MD contains 4 main fields: id, base, offset, size. For these special MD (ALL_MEMORY, GLOBAL_MEMORY, STACK_MEMORY, HEAP_MEMORY),  we give them id 1, 2, 3, 4, that means MD1 is ALL_MEMORY, MD2 is GLOBAL_MEMORY, the same goes for the rest.  Then we maintain a

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Steven Su <steven_known at yahoo.com.cn> wrote: > Hi, John > I am building a flow sensitive intra-procedural alias analysis(without interprocedural info). > So, the first thing I have to consider is where a parameter-pointer or a global-pointer might point to. > Then I defined several special Virtual Memory Locations:

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:29 AM, Steven Su <steven_known at yahoo.com.cn> wrote: > Hi, Daniel, thank you for your advice. > Yes, ALL_MEMORY points to ALL_MEMORY. > > We use MD(memory descriptor) to abstract a memory location. > MD contains 4 main fields: id, base, offset, size. > For these special MD (ALL_MEMORY, GLOBAL_MEMORY, STACK_MEMORY, HEAP_MEMORY), > we give them

Is there a way to get the following to work under WINE? (i.e. to get two executables to share global memory as they do under windows) We have a DLL that is at a specified memory location. At the top of the code a variable is declared as follows: #pragma data_seg( "global_mem" ) #pragma bss_seg( "global_mem" ) unsigned uAttachmentCount = 0; Now.. The main program links

On Feb 28, 2008, at 10:43 AM, Richard Warburton wrote: > This email is written on the premise that LLVM will be involved in > GSOC again this year. I hope so too! > I would be looking to implement a context-sensitive alias analysis. > Whilst I accept that this isn't the most efficient category of alias > analysis, I think the implementation of such an analysis, that trades

Hi Everyone, Can anyone help why the errors are coming and rectify it? invalid.ids <- c(1,3,5) if (length(invalid.ids)==0) { cat("No Errors found") } else {

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dehao Chen" <dehao at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Xinliang David Li" > <davidxl at google.com> > Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 6:41:29 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] (RFC) Encoding code duplication factor in

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hal Finkel via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Dehao Chen" <dehao at google.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Xinliang David Li" > <davidxl at google.com> > Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 4:26:17 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] (RFC) Encoding code

This email is written on the premise that LLVM will be involved in GSOC again this year. I noted that the wiki's open projects page [0] has several possible projects, that seem suitable for a summer of code project. I am writing this email to this list with the hope of getting some feedback on specifics for a GSOC application, and also wondering if any potential mentors are interested in

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dehao Chen" <dehao at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Xinliang David Li" > <davidxl at google.com> > Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 8:24:30 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] (RFC) Encoding code duplication factor in

Discussed with Hal, Adrain and Paul offline at the llvm dev meeting today. * trip count is not enough for vectorization, there is runtime check that might go false, which can be reflected in profile that we may want to preserve. * simply recording these context-profile may cause problems to iterative-sample-pgo. i.e. when you find a loop's vectorized version no executed (due to runtime

In many cases, the line-table fussing to improve autoFDO/sample-PGO would also likely help the debugging experience for optimized code, certainly in cases where line attribution is inherently ambiguous. In those cases, I have no problem with Just Doing It. Something likely to pad the line table to benefit profiling without similarly benefiting debugging… that's probably worth inventing a

Hi all, Here I include an RFC for control flow sensitive AutoFDO (FS-AFDO). This is a joint work with David Li. Questions and feedback are welcome. Thanks, Rong ============= [RFC] Control Flow Sensitive AutoFDO (FS-AFDO) 1. Motivation AFDO profile is derived from PMU samples from running an earlier build binary. PMU samples are indexed by the IP addresses. An offline tool uses the debug

> Ok. I think the most important thing to keep in mind, if you want > this to be useful for LLVM, is for it to be sound in the presence of > incomplete programs. I think it would be very interesting to have a > BDD based analysis in LLVM, it would be useful for performance > comparisons and many other things, even if it isn't turned on by > default. However, it must

Hi Rong, This is a very interesting proposal. We've also observed profile quality degradation from CFG destructive pass like loop rotate, and I can see how this proposal would help improve quality of profile that drives later optimization passes in the pipeline. I have a few questions. * How does this affect today's AutoFDO? Specifically, can users upgrade compiler with FS-AutoFDO

Hi all, Just wondering about this: I''ve been dealing with classes/modules nested in several layers of namespaces. Here would be an example of a describe block: describe ClassOne::ClassTwo::ClassThree, "description here" do ... end What would be the easiest way to write something a little more terse, like: describe ClassThree, "description here" do ... end

How is using include in a describe block different than the typical "include" keyword in Ruby? Am I right in believing that the describe block is class_eval''ed? Scott

I''m trying to wrap my head around the new describe/it syntax. First, a few of observations: - the "describe" word itself encourages you to think about contexts as things/nouns; this is reinforced by the way "script/generate rspec_model" and friends by default generate a template spec of the form "describe ClassName do ... end", because classes so