similar to: [LLVMdev] How to transform loop to if-else using LLVM?

Sorry for forgetting to reply all... It works! Thank you very much! But I also wonder how do you know this function will work while there are no documents noticing that. I try learning LLVM by reading its code, but soon feel lost in so many functions. Just like I have many tools, but don't know which to use and what difference it could make. Is there some better ways to learn LLVM? On Wed,

Hi, I am writing a loop pass to replace the backedge with an edge from latch to exit. Now I just replace the terminator of latch with another BranchInst, and the loop will not be a loop after my pass. However, it turns out a failure of loopverify after executing my pass: opt: ~/llvm/llvm-trunk/include/llvm/Analysis/LoopInfoImpl.h:297: void llvm::LoopBase<N, M>::verifyLoop() const [with

On May 7, 2013, at 8:26 PM, zhiyuan yang <sjtu.yzy at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I am writing a loop pass to replace the backedge with an edge from latch to exit. > Now I just replace the terminator of latch with another BranchInst, and the loop will not be a loop after my pass. However, it turns out a failure of loopverify after executing my pass: > > opt:

kinit/nfsmount.c:mount_nfs_root() should use the bootpath specified by bootp/dhcp. If the "nfsroot" option is specified then it overrides the boot server bootpath and a message indicating the override is printed. --- klibc-0.194/kinit/nfsroot.c.orig 2005-01-05 04:13:47.043897880 -0700 +++ klibc-0.194/kinit/nfsroot.c 2005-01-05 04:13:09.316633296 -0700 @@ -66,34 +66,21 @@ const int

>>>>> Michael Lawrence <lawrence.michael at gene.com> >>>>> on Sun, 1 Feb 2015 19:23:06 -0800 writes: > I've implemented the proposed changes in > R-devel. Minimally tested, so please try it. It should > delegate to r/cbind2 when there is at least one S4 > argument and S3 dispatch fails (so you'll probably want to

Are you able to create a reproducible example, somehow? Thanks, Michael On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Mario Annau <mario.annau at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Michael, > I've tested your change in r67699 (using r67773) and the function now > correctly dispatches to r/cbind2 within the R-session without > bind_activation(TRUE). However, running unit tests using R CMD check I

>>>>> Mario Annau <mario.annau at gmail.com> >>>>> on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:18:53 +0100 writes: > sorry - I just got irritated by my different R-versions. > The behaviour I described in the previous mail was discovered using R > 3.1.2 without bind_activation(TRUE). In r67773 all calls are delegated > to r/cbind.matrix and not

On Oct 21, 2013, at 1:00 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Arnold, > > To sum up my intentions, I want to understand how the reduction/induction variable detection works in LLVM, so that I can know better how to detect different patterns in memory, not just the stride vectorization. To detect memory access patterns you will want to look at the SCEV of a

On 21 October 2013 20:58, Arnold Schwaighofer <aschwaighofer at apple.com>wrote: > For example these should be the SCEVs of “int a[2*i] = ; a[2*i+1] =”: > > {ptr, +, 8}_loop > {ptr+4, +, 8}_loop > > Each access on its own requires a gather/scather (2 loads/stores when > vectorized (VF=2) + inserts/extracts). But when we look at both at once we > see that we only

On 23 October 2013 23:05, Arnold Schwaighofer <aschwaighofer at apple.com>wrote: > A reduction is something like: > > for (i= …) { > r+= a[i]; > } > return r; > Ok, so "reduction" is just a reduction in the map-reduce sense, and nothing else. You don’t need to transform them in the legality phase. Believe me ;). Look > at how we handle stride one

Following mail advice from maximilian attems (thanks). The following patch changes 2 parts of kinit's command line parameter handling. 1) Parse command line parameters passed to kinit *before* /proc/cmdline, in order to allow overrides 2) Pass this resultant command line to the init program, rather than forcing the kinit caller to pass all /proc/cmdline parameters to the kinit call.

On Oct 23, 2013, at 3:10 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 23 October 2013 16:05, Arnold Schwaighofer <aschwaighofer at apple.com> wrote: > In the examples you gave there are no reduction variables in the loop vectorizer’s sense. But, they all have memory accesses that are strided. > > This is what I don't get. As far as I understood, a

Hi Xin, Thank you for your reply! I have tried the 3 alias analyses you have mentioned on LLVM 3.5: 1) $ opt -globalsmodref-aa -aa-eval < xxx.bc > /dev/null (May-alias response 100%) 2) $ opt -tbaa -aa-eval < xxx.bc > /dev/null (May-alias response 100%) 3) $ opt -cfl-aa -aa-eval < xxx.bc> /dev/null (Unknown command line argument '-cfl-aa') It seems that they are not

Dear all, I was wondering if there are some reliable alias analyses build on top of LLVM other than basicaa. Thank you! Zhiyuan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150407/db07dba3/attachment.html>

OK, thanks Chris, I've found that running opt -loopsimplify -instcombine -indvars -stats gives me the setup I need for this transformation, and a small patch makes it happen in the simple case we discussed. However, I'm having some trouble when things get a bit more complicated with 3 nesting levels: int A[3000000], B[20000], C[100], Z; int main() { int i, j, k, *a, *b,

Hi, I am learning R by reading R source code. Here is one question I have about the optim function in R. The context : In the optim.R, after all the prep steps, the main function call call is made via : .External2(C_optim, par, fn1, gr1, method, con, lower, upper). So, it seems to me, to follow what is going on from here, that I should read the optim function in \src\library\stats\src\optim.c

Hi all, AVX-512 ISA introduces new vector instructions VCOMPRESS and VEXPAND in order to allow vectorization of the following loops with two specific types of cross-iteration dependencies: Compress: for (int i=0; i<N; ++i) If (t[i]) *A++ = expr; Expand: for (i=0; i<N; ++i) If (t[i]) X[i] = *A++; else

Hello, I use R a lot, one thing bugs me is that when I try the following > x<- -8 > x^(1/3) [1] NaN However, it is fine with -8^(1/3). Priority goes to the power. Can you help me out for this? Thanks. Best, Zhiyuan J. ZHENG Ph.D. Candidate Economic Department Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Phone: 540-231-5120 , Blacksburg, VA, 24060

Dear all, I am trying to reproduce the "Percent May Alias" result described in PLDI 07's paper "Making Context-Sensitive Points-to Analysis with Heap Cloning Practical For The Real World" (http://llvm.org/pubs/2007-06-10-PLDI-DSA.html ). However, my "Percent May Alias" for all the benchmarks is much greater, especially "bzip2". The DSA code I use is

Dear John, I intend to implement the improvements on DSA. After running DSA on SPEC, I found DSA gives low precision for mcf and bzip2. I have checked the most imprecise c files in mcf an found that the code seems to be a mixture of "PHI" and "GEP" instructions. Could you please give me some hints about what the big picture of the improvement should be and how to start? Thank