similar to: [LLVMdev] How to find the first block of each loop

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] How to find the first block of each loop"

2017 Mar 31
4
Dereferenceable load semantics & LICM
Hi Piotr, On March 31, 2017 at 1:07:12 PM, Piotr Padlewski (piotr.padlewski at gmail.com) wrote: > [snip] > Do I understand it correctly, that it is legal to do the hoist because all > of the instructions above %vtable does not throw? Yes, I think you're right.  HeaderMayThrow is a conservative approximation, and the conservativeness is biting us here. > Are there any plans to
2017 Apr 03
4
Dereferenceable load semantics & LICM
2017-04-01 15:59 GMT+02:00 Piotr Padlewski <piotr.padlewski at gmail.com>: > > > 2017-03-31 23:20 GMT+02:00 Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>: > >> Hi Piotr, >> >> On March 31, 2017 at 1:07:12 PM, Piotr Padlewski >> (piotr.padlewski at gmail.com) wrote: >> > [snip] >> > Do I understand it correctly, that it is legal to
2007 Aug 07
2
array
Hello, I have some files generated from microarray experiments. I used scan() to read the files, and assigned each file to a unique name with many rows and columns. Now I want to create a array (ArrayA) with unique names, and I can use ArrayA[1,2][[6]] to refer the data in each file. Is there any packages available for array of array? Thanks! [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
2017 Mar 31
2
Dereferenceable load semantics & LICM
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com > wrote: > Hi Piotr, > > On March 31, 2017 at 9:07:42 AM, Piotr Padlewski > (piotr.padlewski at gmail.com) wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have a question about dereferenceable metadata on load instruction. I > > have a patch (https://reviews.llvm.org/D31539) for LICM that hoists >
2012 Feb 08
0
[LLVMdev] BackedgeTakenCount calculation for fortran loops and DragonEgg gfortran-4.6
Mmm, sorry, the patch I posted crashes if ExitBr is null (which it may be ...) , this one should be ok (and passess all the ScalarEvolution tests in LLVM): diff --git a/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp b/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp index daf7742..b10fab2 100644 --- a/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp +++ b/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp @@ -4293,9 +4293,15 @@
2012 Feb 08
2
[LLVMdev] BackedgeTakenCount calculation for fortran loops and DragonEgg gfortran-4.6
Attached 2012/2/8 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > Mmm, sorry, the patch I posted crashes if ExitBr is null (which it may > be ...) , this one should be ok (and passess all the ScalarEvolution > tests in LLVM): > > diff --git a/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp b/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp > index daf7742..b10fab2 100644 > ---
2012 Feb 08
0
[LLVMdev] BackedgeTakenCount calculation for fortran loops and DragonEgg gfortran-4.6
Your patch should include a testcase, see test/Analysis/ScalarEvolution for examples. "BranchInst* " should be "BranchInst *". You should have spaces after the // in your comments. One of the comment lines isn't indented properly. Nick On 8 February 2012 12:05, Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com> wrote: > Attached > > 2012/2/8 Marcello Maggioni
2012 Feb 08
2
[LLVMdev] BackedgeTakenCount calculation for fortran loops and DragonEgg gfortran-4.6
Well, it wasn't intended as a "real" patch to be included , but more as a "proof of concept" for a solution. Do you think it is a valid solution and I'm correct in my assumption? If so then I'll clean up the patch and attach a testcase for inclusion. Thanks! Marcello 2012/2/9 Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com>: > Your patch should include a testcase,
2012 Feb 08
0
[LLVMdev] BackedgeTakenCount calculation for fortran loops and DragonEgg gfortran-4.6
On 8 February 2012 15:50, Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com> wrote: > Well, it wasn't intended as a "real" patch to be included , but more > as a "proof of concept" for a solution. Do you think it is a valid > solution and I'm correct in my assumption? If so then I'll clean up > the patch and attach a testcase for inclusion. > I'm
2012 Feb 08
2
[LLVMdev] BackedgeTakenCount calculation for fortran loops and DragonEgg gfortran-4.6
Hello, I'm finding problems with BackEdgeTaken count calculation in even simple fortran loops with gfortran-4.6 + DragonEgg 3.0. Even for simple double loops like this one: program test2 integer i,j,k dimension k(100,100) do j=1,100 do i=1,100 k(i,j) = i enddo enddo write(*,*) k(1,30) end make the ScalarEvolution
2012 Feb 09
2
[LLVMdev] BackedgeTakenCount calculation for fortran loops and DragonEgg gfortran-4.6
This is the .ll for that graph (attached). I think I understand what you are saying. This particular testcase returns CNC not because the exit block doesn't have a unique predecessor, but because the unique predecessor (the inner loop block) has a successor that is inside the loop (in this case itself, because it's the inner loop block). That doesn't change, anyway, the assuption that
2012 Feb 09
0
[LLVMdev] BackedgeTakenCount calculation for fortran loops and DragonEgg gfortran-4.6
This is instead a very simple (handmade) test case that triggers the problem (attached) Also a more conforming patch has been attached 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > This is the .ll for that graph (attached). I think I understand what > you are saying. > This particular testcase returns CNC not because the exit block > doesn't have a unique predecessor,
2012 Feb 09
1
[LLVMdev] BackedgeTakenCount calculation for fortran loops and DragonEgg gfortran-4.6
FInally I had the time to complete everything up. Now I included the test case in the patch and the testcase runs with the LLVM tests system. 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > This is instead a very simple (handmade) test case that triggers the > problem (attached) > Also a more conforming patch has been attached > > 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms
2004 Aug 05
4
newest up2date rpm
i updated to the latest up2date rpm.... then when updating to the latest kernel this is what happened after i ran up2date -fu for the kernel/kernel-source updates Testing package set / solving RPM inter-dependencies... Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/sbin/up2date", line 1174, in ? sys.exit(main() or 0) File "/usr/sbin/up2date", line 772, in main
2005 Aug 26
1
wchar and wstring.
Hello all, I am writing an R interface to some C++ files which make use of std::wstring classes for internationalization. Previously (when I wanted to make R strings from C++ std::strings), I would do something like this to construct a string in R from the results of the parse. SET_VECTOR_ELT(vals, i++, mkString(header.GetHeader().c_str())); However, now the call header.GetHeader().c_str()
2007 Oct 06
3
Prototype: resp.getHeader('Location'); redirects browser
Why when I call resp.getHeader(''Location''); after my ajax call does the browser get redirected to the location header. I just want to get the value of it. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group. To post to this group, send email to
2013 Mar 12
0
[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote: > > On Mar 11, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Mar 11, 2013, at 2:37 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On
2013 Mar 12
2
[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA
On Mar 11, 2013, at 7:52 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote: >> >> On Mar 11, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mar 11, 2013, at 2:37 PM,
2013 Mar 27
1
[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA (new version)
Hello, After discussions with Daniel, Dan and others, here is an updated proposal for struct-access-path aware TBAA. Given an example struct A { int x; int y; }; struct B { A a; int z; }; struct C { B b1; B b2; int *p; }; struct D { C c; }; The purpose of struct-path-aware TBAA is to say "C::b1.a" will alias with "B::a.x", "C::b1.a" will alias with
2015 May 14
4
[LLVMdev] getnode(BB) = 0; block already in dominator tree
Hi I run into an issue as part of splitting a critical edge during LICM. When a new basic block is created and needs to be added into the dominator tree, the block is already in the dominator tree. I print the dominator tree and I see it is added into the tree as child of node it is supposed to dominate. How do I debug to find out why/when its getting added into the tree. ? Tips/suggestions on