similar to: [LLVMdev] lower-lever IR (A-normal form)

Hi, i would like to ask you, if i can get a lower-level representation than the llvm IR.For example, having the following instruction in the llvm IR, call void @llvm.memcpy.i32(i8* %19, i8* getelementptr inbounds ([2 x [2 x [3 x i8]]]* @main.s, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0), i32 12, i32 1) i would like to get something like this (in A-normal form (without nested instructions):%temp = i8*

I would like to create some tables for my instructions in the IR. For example a table that has all the store instructions. I want all the arguments to a function or instruction or constant etc to be trivial. So to fix my previous example instead of having : call void @llvm.memcpy.i32(i8* %19, i8* getelementptr inbounds ([2 x [2 x [3 x i8]]]* @main.s, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0), i32 12, i32

I recently posted a message about an interesting dilemma which I could not figure out. After doing a whole lot more digging I think I have figured out part of what is going on. The parking app is implemented as an app, ie can be called from extensions.conf) but if you look really closely, it is also implemented in each channels driver (handler, whatever you want to call it) and those

Hello people. I have used all the simple smb.conf that i found at samba.org. Now i'm using [global] workgroup = LAN netbios name = netbiosname [homes] guest ok = yes read only = no In all cases i get a prompt for login but i cannot login! I'm using local slackware's accounts but nothing. Can you please give me a simple example? Thank you in advanced! ps:Using slackware 10. ps2: Now

Hi there I have a Dialogic VFX/40 ESC plus installed on Redhat Linux 8.0 and looking for Channel drivers for this Card. where cann i found channel drivers for VFX/40 ESC ? Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20041223/d61b3065/attachment.htm

Hello, I'm new to icecast, but in few time I setup a streaming system using a raspberry pi as stream source through darkice towards my icecast server. All seemed fine with the basic mountpoint configuration, but when I tried to try some of the more "advanced" features I failed badly. More specifically: 1. I tried to force a failback mountpoint like this:

Dear list, I have a dataset containing values obtained from two different instruments (x and y). I want to generate 5 samples from normal distribution for each instrument based on their means and standard deviations. The problem is values from both instruments are non-negative, so if using rnorm I would get some negative values. Is there any options to determine the lower bound of normal

Dear R users I read two csv data files into R and called them Tem1 and Tem5. For the first column, data in Tem1 has 13 digits where in Tem5 there are 14 digits for each observation. Originally there are 'numerical' as can be seen in my code below. But how can I display/convert them using other form rather than scientific notations which seems a standard/default? I want them to be in

hello people and nice to meet you. tasoss@starla:~/tcng$ ./configure Reading configuration defaults from ./config building tcsim: yes Kernel source: /home/tasoss/linux-2.6.16.20 Kernel version: 2.6.16 iproute2 source: /home/tasoss/iproute2-2.6.16-060323 iproute2 version: 060323 Host byte order: little endian tcng command: /home/tasoss/tcng/bin/tcng YACC is:

Hello, I assumed SCEV purpose was to be a normal form, but then I wondered which one of those is the normal form: (zext i16 (trunc i32 %a to i16) to i32) vs (-((%a /u 65536) *u 65536) + %a) The first one is nice for interval analysis, and known bit analysis. The second one is nice when plugged into gep of 2d arrays. -- *Alexandre Isoard* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

Tom Cohen <tom.cohen78@yahoo.se> skrev: Thanks Prof Brian for your suggestion. I should know that for right-skewed data, one should generate the samples from a lognormal. My problem is that x and y are two instruments that were thought to be measured the same thing but somehow show a wide confidence interval of the difference between the two intruments.This may be true that these

Note that there is a slight difficulty due to the fact that we "sink" the trunc: (zext i16 {0,+,1}<%bb> to i32) + (65536 * ({0,+,1}<nuw><%bb> /u 65536) Here the recurrence lost it's <nuw> and got reduced to a i16 (on the left), but not on the right. But we can prove: - that (zext i16 {0,+,1}<%bb> to i32) has the same 16 LSB than (i32

On 3/29/11 12:26 PM, George Baah wrote: > Hi All, > When I run the following command > llvm-gcc -03 -emit-llvm test.cpp -c -o test.bc or llvm-gcc -emit-llvm > test.cpp -c -o test.bc > > on the program test.cpp, the IR representation is not in SSA form. > I do not see any phi functions. Actually, it is in SSA form (or more precisely, the virtual registers are in SSA form;

Hi Tim, Thank you for this information. I have another request for help from you, Below is my test case, iGetValueFromASM proc mov rax, 5 mov rax, 5 mov rax, 2 mov rax, 5 mov rax, 2 mov rax, 112233445566 add rax, 2 mov rax, 112233445566 add rax, 5 add rax, 2 I have lowered 32bit LLVM IR, %0 = type { i32, i32, i32, i32, i32, i32, i32, i32, i32, i32, i32, i32, i32, i32, i32, i32, i32, i32, i32,

Hi, I need some help, As per my requirement, I am trying to lower down the x86_64bit binary LLVM IR to x86 LLVM IR. Instruction of x86_64 binary are as follows, mov rax, 1122334455667788 mov rax, 8877665544332211 To lower down the same in x86, I need to split 'rax' register into 'rax_lower' and 'rax_higher'. Can anybody please give me some pointer to do the same or any

Hi all, this is Jeehoon Kang, a CS PhD student and a newbie to LLVM. I am wondering why LLVM IR's basic block consists of a list of instructions, rather than a DAG of instruction as in the low level (ISelectionDAG). My gut feeling tells me that LLVM IR in DAG form may admit more optimisations in a systematic manner. This is because data dependence is more explicit in a DAG of instructions

Hi All, When I run the following command llvm-gcc -03 -emit-llvm test.cpp -c -o test.bc or llvm-gcc -emit-llvm test.cpp -c -o test.bc on the program test.cpp, the IR representation is not in SSA form. I do not see any phi functions. program: test.cpp int main(int argc, char **argv) { int a[2],i,j; for(i=0;i<2;i++) { a[i] = i; } return a[1]; } Any clarifications will be

On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:38 PM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk > wrote: > > > On 21 Feb 2015, at 05:59, Jeehoon Kang <jeehoon.kang at sf.snu.ac.kr> > wrote: > > > > this is Jeehoon Kang, a CS PhD student and a newbie to LLVM. > > > > I am wondering why LLVM IR's basic block consists of a list of > instructions, > >

I don't want to get into the debate w.r.t. which IR style is better - ask me over beer if you care about my opinions - but as an FYI, there are serious proposals being worked on to introduce some notion of memory def-use edges to help in analysing memory operations. I don't think we've settled on a concrete proposal yet, but I wouldn't be surprised to see something in the

Hello all, I'm currently investigating the option to completely replace a SBS2003 DC with a Samba4 DC. My research (mostly on samba.org guides) shows that it is feasible, however I'd like to get feedback from the community on my goals. Current status: A Windows SBS 2003 is the PDC and a W2008 R2 server is acting as secondary DC. Domain operational level is 2003. There are ~40-50