similar to: [LLVMdev] NULL successors exposed via GraphTraits

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 120 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] NULL successors exposed via GraphTraits"

2013 Jun 05
0
[LLVMdev] CallGraph, GraphTraits and DominatorTree
Hi there, I'm currently writing an analysis (for now) pass for LLVM that kind of need some information from the CallGraph of the program. This info would be extremely easy to get if I could build the DominatorTree information about the CallGraph. I even checked out and saw the declarations of GraphTraits templates for CallGraph and CallGraphNode, which might indicate that all algorithms that
2011 Aug 02
0
[LLVMdev] Multiple successors, single dynamic successor
I'm assuming that you're talking about a situation where this can't be determined statically in the existing LLVM IR, but you know it's true and want to put it in (e.g. you're the one generating LLVM IR). If that's not the case, then see if JumpThreading will do it for you. I'm not familiar with a way to express exactly what you want to say, but are you opposed to just
2011 Aug 02
0
[LLVMdev] Multiple successors, single dynamic successor
Nella citazione martedì 2 agosto 2011 22:01:13, Carlo Alberto Ferraris ha scritto: > My question is: > what is the best way to > express such relationships in LLVM IR ("best" in the sense of allowing > other optimizations to run effectively)? Bear in mind that in this > example N=2, but it may be way bigger than that. Just to clarify: I already figured out two ways to
2017 May 24
3
GraphTraits dereferencing
Hello, I’m trying to port a project up to 4.0 and I’m seeing the following error: In file included from /Users/jaredcarlson/Projects/llvm-4.0.0.src/include/llvm/ADT/StringRef.h:13: /Users/jaredcarlson/Projects/llvm-4.0.0.src/include/llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h:139:13: error: no type named 'type' in 'std::__1::result_of<std::__1::pointer_to_unary_function<llvm::DSNode *, llvm::DSNode
2011 Aug 02
2
[LLVMdev] Multiple successors, single dynamic successor
Suppose I have a bb with N predecessors and N successors. What is, in your opinion, the best way to express that the bb has (dynamically) only one successor (i.e. if coming from the i-th predecessor we will always jump to the i-th successor)? b.r., -- Carlo Alberto Ferraris <cafxx at strayorange.com <mailto:cafxx at strayorange.com>> website/blog
2010 Jun 19
1
[LLVMdev] Successors v/s Children
Hi, Can anyone tell me how to find successors and children of a basic-block ? What is the difference between successors and Children? Regards, Chayan
2011 Mar 12
0
[LLVMdev] problems when the llvm::ExtractCodeRegion updates the Phi nodes in successors ... is there a method to eliminate phi nodes ?
Hi, I use the llvm::ExtractCodeRegion to extract each loop into a separate function, but I have a problem when I run this on the SPEC CPU 2006 on the 401.bzip2 benchmark. First I use clang -O3 to generate optimized llvm code and then I extract some loops from the module built from blocksort.c source file. The problem is that the PHI nodes contained in the successors of the codeRepl
2013 Jun 26
0
[LLVMdev] Can NewBB have more than one successors in DT.splitBlock method?
In Dominators.h, the splitBlock(NewBB) method assumes that the NewBB has only one successor. I don't see why it cant have more than one successors. Is there a reason? Or it's just assumed that way to simplify things? Thanks a lot. -- Wei Dang -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:
2011 Aug 02
3
[LLVMdev] Multiple successors, single dynamic successor
Nella citazione martedì 2 agosto 2011 20:02:08, Michael Ilseman ha scritto: > I'm assuming that you're talking about a situation where this can't be > determined statically in the existing LLVM IR, but you know it's true > and want to put it in (e.g. you're the one generating LLVM IR). Correct. Or, more precisely, I'd like to investigate macro compression, i.e.
2013 Jul 31
1
[LLVMdev] Problem to remove successors
Hi All, I need to remove successors from every basic block to insert new ones I tried this code, but it doesn't work void RemoveSuccessor(TerminatorInst *TI, unsigned SuccNum) { assert(SuccNum < TI->getNumSuccessors() && "Trying to remove a nonexistant successor!"); // If our old successor block contains any PHI nodes, remove the entry in the //
2007 Oct 15
0
VMX status report against xen-unstable #16107 & linux-xen#255 -- 1 new issue.
Hi all, On PAE, two major issues: 2.6.23: kernel HVM Linux will boot failed if set acpi=1; SMP Fedora 7 can not be installed. On IA32E, Fedora 7 can not be installed successfully. New issues: ================================================= 1) 64bit Fedora 7 installation fails (This issue also happened in old cset) http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1086 Old issues:
2007 Oct 12
0
VMX status report against xen-unstable #16096 & linux-xen #253 -- 1 issue fixed.
Hi all, Live migration issue has been fixed in this changeset. On PAE, 2.6.23 kernel HVM Linux will boot failed if set acpi=1. SMP Fedora 7 can not be installed. On IA32E, no special issue has been found. Fixed issues: ================================================= 1) local live migration/save&restore will cause guest hang http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1081
2010 Dec 06
0
2.6.18-194.26.1.el5 NFS4 race conditions?
Are there any known race conditions with 2.6.18-194.26.1.el5 x86_64 and NFS4? Today a user managed to shut down two identical Intel servers by copying a simple text file via NFS4. Reverting back to 17.1 made the error disappear. On other non-identical hardware the error was not reproducible (so it must be a combination of hardware and this special kernel revision). Anybody interested in a
2011 Feb 03
1
No kernel-debuginfo for actual kernel?
After a crash I tried wget http://debuginfo.centos.org/5/x86_64/kernel-debuginfo-2.6.18-194.32.1.el5.x86_64.rpm as usual. But for 32.1 there is no kernel-debuginfo. Is there any reason for that? Thank you in advance! Gerhard Schneider -- Gerhard Schneider e-Mail:gs at ilsb.tuwien.ac.at Institute of Lightweight Design and Tel.: +43 664 60 588 3171
2011 May 18
2
Some thoughts about EL 6
Many people seem to wait for the announcement of CentOS 6.0, so I want to share some test results I did with SL 6.0.. The actual 6.0 kernel can NOT allocate tape buffers when the server is heavily loaded at least on some LSILogic hardware. There is a big problem of slab buffer increase that can cause reboot/freeze of the server under load. Reported by many and verified by me :-( So perhaps
2017 Sep 15
0
TCP Wrappers
Hello there to all ! I have issues to make work the spawn on hosts.allow on a CentOS 7 system ? Has anyone succeed with this ..? Thanks in advance Nick __________ Information from ESET Endpoint Antivirus, version of detection engine 16085 (20170914) __________ The message was checked by ESET Endpoint Antivirus. Email message - is OK http://www.eset.com
2010 Sep 26
4
[LLVMdev] Win32 COFF Support
Hi guys, While trying to get dwarf debugging information to work with Win32 COFF targets, I came across a couple of issues with the current implementation of WinCOFFObjectWriter. Emitting empty section causes debug information to invalid, as the presence of certain debug section implies available information, and emission of labels as symbols confused gdb about the structure of the program. The
2023 Jan 12
1
Reg: ggplot error
Hallo I am not familiar with any of packages you use (except of MASS and ggplot2) and the code is too complicated without any hint where the error could come from and what is the message you get. I wonder if anybody would like to go through your whole code. 1. data seems to be read correctly ICUData <- read.csv(file = "ICUData.csv", stringsAsFactors = TRUE) ICUData.neuro <-
2009 Dec 04
0
[LLVMdev] hi, Hi, (Preccessors' Number) < MachineBasicBlock's Number < (Successors's Number), Is it really?
On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:52 PM, 任坤 wrote: > Hi, EveryOne: > > I am travelling CFG with MachineFunction. So I want to sure it. > (Preccessors' Number) < MachineBasicBlock's Number < (Successors's Number), Is it really? > Hi 任坤, I can't say for sure, though I don't think we make assurances that this is the case. If you want to traverse the CFG, there should
2009 Dec 04
0
[LLVMdev] hi, Hi, (Preccessors' Number) < MachineBasicBlock's Number < (Successors's Number), Is it really?
On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:52 PM, 任坤 wrote: > I am travelling CFG with MachineFunction. So I want to sure it. > (Preccessors' Number) < MachineBasicBlock's Number < (Successors's Number), Is it really? If the CFG contains loops, how could this be possible? Anyway, no you can't use MBB numbers for that. Perhaps you need the MachineDominatorTree analysis? Regards, /jakob