similar to: [LLVMdev] 'LowerDbgDeclare' in Instruction combining affects scope information

Hi all, For example,if there is ten subdirectories named sub1~sub10(each including subdirectories and files too),and file1~file10,how can I rsync only sub2 and sub 3 to the target? /---- MyFolder |---------- sub1 |---------- sub2 |---------- sub3 |---------- sub4 |---------- sub5 |---------- sub6 |---------- sub7 |---------- sub8 |---------- sub9

Hi all, I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but I wanted to make sure I was clear. I am trying to merge two dataframes that share a number of rows (but some are unique to each data frame). Each row represents a subject in a study. The problem is that sex is coded differently in the two, including the way missing values are represented. Here is an example of the merged dataframe:

Hi Mikael, You are obtaining warning, not an error, right? The most arm cores, including arm1136, can execute mul with rd = rm. So, you can ignore this warning. Lauro 2007/6/12, Peltier, Mikael <m-peltier at ti.com>: > > > > > Hello, > > > > I want to compile a LLVM file into an executable running on ARM platform. > > I use LLVM 2.0 with the following

Hello, I want to compile a LLVM file into an executable running on ARM platform. I use LLVM 2.0 with the following command lines: llvm-as -f -o test.bc test.ll llc -march=arm -mcpu=arm1136j-s -mattr=+v6 -f -o test.s test.bc arm-linux-gnu-as -mcpu=arm1136j-s test.s With the last command, I obtain the following error: rd and rm should be different in mul The bad instruction is

In https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38011 (see also https://reviews.llvm.org/D48721) a problem was revealed related to llvm.loop metadata. The fault was that clang added the !llvm.loop metadata to branches outside of the loop (not only the loop latch). That was not handled properly by some opt passes (simplifying cfg) since it ended up merging branch instructions with different !llvm.loop

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Vitor Luis Menezes <vitor at utexas.edu> wrote: >> We've got the following test case: >> >> >> class A { >> public: >>   int x; >>   A(int x) : x(x) {} >>   int hoo() {return 4;} >>   virtual int foo() {return x;}

For example, I have the following IR code, for.cond.preheader: ; preds = %if.end18 %mul = mul i32 %12, %3 %cmp21128 = icmp sgt i32 %mul, 0 br i1 %cmp21128, label %for.body.preheader, label %return for.body.preheader: ; preds = %for.cond.preheader %19 = mul i32 %12, %3 %20 = add i32 %19, -1 %21 = zext i32 %20 to i64 %22 =

Hi, I just started with R and I found that there are many options to rearrange the data to do mixed models. I want to use the reshape function. I have 2 between subject variables and one within. I was able to change the data structure but still - the result of the aov functions are calculating everything as a within subject. the table looks like this: SerialNo breed treatment distance_1

Hi Sorry, that the previous email is sent out before I complete it due to my mistake. Please read this I am using the LLVM function pass to help me to do code analysis. However, I found that the block LLVM identified will ignore the function call. For example, the below IR should not be a basic block. %call17 = call i32* @__errno_location() #14, !dbg !1384 %18 = load i32, i32* %call17,

> On 29 May 2018, at 22:40, Muhui Jiang via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi > > Sorry, that the previous email is sent out before I complete it due to my mistake. Please read this > > I am using the LLVM function pass to help me to do code analysis. However, I found that the block LLVM identified will ignore the function call. > > For

Hi Dean Thank you very much for you very quick reply. I am still a little bit confused and below is some of my questions. In LLVM, basic blocks can contain function calls. This allows partial and/or full code inlining. ======= So the reason why basic blocks can contain function calls is because of code inlining? The control flow graph (CFG) referred to in LLVM passes only include the LLVM basic

There was a patch committed the other day that should, at least, work around some of the behavior you describe. Optimized debug info is an area that's being worked on in ToT and previous releases are particularly bad. I'd use that. -eric On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Pankaj Gode <godepankaj at yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > Due to 'LowerDbgDeclare' call ( as

Hi All,   Due to 'LowerDbgDeclare' call ( as part of 'instruction combining' optimization), a local variable gets declared and initialized inside the basic blocks it is used in. Is there anyway I can avoid this ?   This is with reference with my previous question. http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-April/061644.html     Regards, Pankaj -------------- next part

Hi Eric,   Thanks for patch information. I have checked the patch with my code and I see that it works. But when I extract the variable and check the metadata information to retrieve the scope information, I do not get exact scope, after optimization. As you said that this is a work in progress, so can we expect full version on this in llvm3.3 release ?   Regards, Pankaj  

Here is an answer to a 1999 post. I didn't find a direct answer anywhere on the Web, perhaps because it is "obvious" once one sees it. Suppose you have data from a longitudinal study, where each subject was measured *up to* four times, with missing measurements, so that the data look like this: > MAT<- structure(c(23, 24, 6, 19, 16, 20, 13, 11, NA, 8, NA, 21, 19, 15, 11,

Hello everyone, please I need your help. To reproduce my problem I created simple pass for backends (TestPass.cpp in attached files). That pass I call from Mips backend in this way (MipsTargetMachine.cpp): bool MipsPassConfig::addPreRegAlloc() { addPass(createTestPass()); return false; } The problem becomes, when I am trying compile file ldtoa.ll (in attached files). Compiling

Hi, Is LLVM be able to generate code for the following code? %mul = mul <2 x i32> %1, %2, where %1 and %2 are <2 x i32> type. I am running it on a Haswell processor with LLVM-3.4.2. It seems that it will generates really complicated code with vpaddq, vpmuludq, vpsllq, vpsrlq. Thanks, Zhi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi I am using the LLVM function pass to help me to do code analysis. I use -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180529/a617b2c6/attachment.html>

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Vitor Luis Menezes <vitor at utexas.edu> wrote: > We've got the following test case: > > > class A { > public: >   int x; >   A(int x) : x(x) {} >   int hoo() {return 4;} >   virtual int foo() {return x;} >   virtual int goo() {return foo()+10;} >   virtual int operator+(A &a) { >     return x + a.x; >   } > };

Dear all, I'm attaching a patch that should fix the issue mentioned above. It simply makes the same check seen in the same file for global variables: emitPTXAddressSpace(PTy->getAddressSpace(), O); if (GVar->getAlignment() == 0) O << " .align " << (int) TD->getPrefTypeAlignment(ETy); else O << " .align " <<