similar to: [LLVMdev] clone function with constant argument, and constant fold it

Stack colouring should be able to reuse the same stack space, if the live ranges of the pointers don't overlap. But I don't think anyone has built a general solution for alloca'd space. On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Ali Javadi <aj14889 at yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi, > > In my llvm code I want to create some function calls. The function > prototype is as follows: >

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Ali Javadi <aj14889 at yahoo.com> wrote: > I am keeping all the types of C, and adding my new types. I thought that, > for example, I can't map my new type to i32 because that's used for C > integers. That's what I meant by already used. Am I missing something? If the type behaves like an i32 then use i32. For example, both signed and

Hi, In my llvm code I want to create some function calls. The function prototype is as follows: int memoize ( char *function_name, int *int_params, unsigned num_ints, double *double_params, unsigned num_doubles) In order to create these calls I do the following for example: %88 = alloca [7 x i8] store volatile [7 x i8] c"ORACLE\00", [7 x i8]*

Hi Sean, >> Can I just utilize the i1 type? Is the >> i1 type already used for something, and thus might create a conflict? > > I think you are very confused. LLVM's types are meant to be used to > represent *your* program :) They can't be "already used". I am keeping all the types of C, and adding my new types. I thought that, for example, I can't map

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Here is a new and improved version that also does the following: if the > condition for a conditional branch has the form "A && B" then A, B and the > condition are all replaced with "true" in the true destination (similarly > for || conditions in the false destination).  Also,

On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 15:50 -0700, leo han wrote: > Hello, I have a question about the constant folding for fdiv instructions. > For the instruction "fdiv double 0.0, 0.0", the folded result is inf. I > think this should be nan. Can anyone tell me why it is not nan? I think the specification says that it is "undefined" so any value will do. inf is just as undefined

Hello, I have a question about the constant folding for fdiv instructions. For the instruction "fdiv double 0.0, 0.0", the folded result is inf. I think this should be nan. Can anyone tell me why it is not nan? Thanks. Leo _________________________________________________________________ Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon.

Hi Jeff, sorry my example was misleading. > Then I misunderstood it's purpose. I see now that constant propagation could > remove branches because you know a value is true. I was looking at the problem > through my 'register allocator' lens. Here is a more expressive example of what > you are doing. > > define i1 @t1(i1 %c) { > br i1 %c, label %t, label %f

Jeff Cohen wrote: > Reid Spencer wrote: >> On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 15:50 -0700, leo han wrote: >> >>> Hello, I have a question about the constant folding for fdiv instructions. >>> For the instruction "fdiv double 0.0, 0.0", the folded result is inf. I >>> think this should be nan. Can anyone tell me why it is not nan? >>>

Duncan, GVN already does this. See lines 1669-1689. --Owen On Feb 7, 2011, at 4:50 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi all, I wrote a little pass (attached) which does the following: if it sees a > conditional branch instruction then it replaces all occurrences of the condition > in the true block with "true" and in the false block with "false". Well, OK, it > is a

Jeff Cohen wrote: > Jeff Cohen wrote: >> Reid Spencer wrote: >>> On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 15:50 -0700, leo han wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, I have a question about the constant folding for fdiv instructions. >>>> For the instruction "fdiv double 0.0, 0.0", the folded result is inf. I >>>> think this should be nan. Can anyone tell

Hi there, I asked this a few days ago and Sean gave a useful answer. Going back to the second question below, I want to clarify something. On Feb 3, 2013, at 9:04 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Ali Javadi <aj14889 at yahoo.com> wrote: >> I am keeping all the types of C, and adding my new types. I thought that, >> for

Are you sure this is really advantageous? '%c' is only one variable, but when you add the constant propagation, '%c' and false/true are two different variables. Thus define i1 @t1(i1 %c) { br i1 %c, label %t, label %f t: ret i1 %c f: ret i1 %c } should be br i1 R0, label %t, label %f t: ret R0 f: ret R0 However, with your pass define i1 @t1(i1 %c) { br i1

Reid Spencer wrote: > On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 15:50 -0700, leo han wrote: > >> Hello, I have a question about the constant folding for fdiv instructions. >> For the instruction "fdiv double 0.0, 0.0", the folded result is inf. I >> think this should be nan. Can anyone tell me why it is not nan? >> > > I think the specification says that it is

Here is a new and improved version that also does the following: if the condition for a conditional branch has the form "A && B" then A, B and the condition are all replaced with "true" in the true destination (similarly for || conditions in the false destination). Also, if the condition has the form "X == Y" then X is replaced by Y everywhere in the true

Nick Lewycky wrote: > Duncan Sands wrote: >> Here is a new and improved version that also does the following: if the >> condition for a conditional branch has the form "A && B" then A, B and the >> condition are all replaced with "true" in the true destination (similarly >> for || conditions in the false destination). Also, if the condition

Hi, I have some newly defined intrinsic functions in my llvm IR code, which I want to translate to X86 instruction set. As a first step, I want to be able to generate "nop" for these instructions, so the program at least compiles successfully. The call to my intrinsic function looks like this in the IR: call void @llvm.X(i16 %43) >From what I understand it may be possible to

Hi, In LLVM (using the opt tool), is it possible to force a nested loop be unrolled entirely? Something like a pass option? I have a nested loop with depth of 4, and all trip counts are known at compile time, but so far I've only been able to do this by 4 invocations of the -loop-simplify, -loop-rotate, -loop-unroll passes. Thanks, Ali

Then I misunderstood it's purpose. I see now that constant propagation could remove branches because you know a value is true. I was looking at the problem through my 'register allocator' lens. Here is a more expressive example of what you are doing. define i1 @t1(i1 %c) { br i1 %c, label %t, label %f t: br i1 %c, label %t2, label %f2 t2: code... ret something f2: code...

Duncan Sands wrote: > Here is a new and improved version that also does the following: if the > condition for a conditional branch has the form "A && B" then A, B and the > condition are all replaced with "true" in the true destination (similarly > for || conditions in the false destination). Also, if the condition has > the form "X == Y" then X