similar to: [LLVMdev] Is it safe to insert instructions in batches into BBs?

Marcello Maggioni <marcello at codeplay.com> writes: > I'm getting a very strange behaviour while adding already created > instructions in batches into basicblocks instead of creating and > inserting them immediately. > > Because I need to insert instructions in a certain specific order > inside multiple different BBs I found it easy to use the IRBuilder to > create

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Marcello Maggioni > Subject: [LLVMdev] Is it safe to insert instructions in batches into BBs? > Because I need to insert instructions in a certain specific order inside > multiple different BBs I found it easy to use the IRBuilder to create > instructions without inserting them into a

2011/11/21 Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es>: > On 11/20/2011 04:36 PM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: >> >> Sorry for the noobish question, but what kind of subscripts generate a >> SCEVCouldNotCompute  from the SCEV engine? >> I tried for a while but I wasn't able to trigger that > > Hi Marcello, > > the SCEV returns SCEVCouldNotCompute in case it

Something like, keeping the compiler alive for a many compilation sessions, using the same LLVMContext, but without the problem of accumulating data in the LLVMContext that would slowly fill up the memory. This as much I can enter into details that I can :/ Probably this is also a quite common use case scenario too. Marcello 2014-06-24 18:52 GMT+01:00 Eric Christopher <echristo at

On 11/18/2011 01:36 PM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: > 2011/11/18 Marcello Maggioni<hayarms at gmail.com>: >> The patch is attached. >> >> The patch to correct the test runs on OSX will be posted shortly after >> this one (I preferred to separate the two so that a problem with >> either one of the two wouldn't give problems to the other and also to >>

Hello, I'm working on a compiler based on LLVM for a SIMD architecture that supports instruction predication. We would like to implement branching on this architecture using predication. As you know the LLVM-IR doesn't support instruction predication, so I'm not exactly sure on what is the best way to implement it. We came up with some ways to do it in LLVM: - Do not add any

Hi Tobias, thanks for the answer. I'll try to give a look to the code you pointed me to , and I'll try to make the modification myself. I'm new to LLVM and Polly, but the code of both seem clean and understandable, so I hope to be able to do it myself. In case I'll ask here for support :) Marcello 2011/10/1 Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es>: > On 10/01/2011 03:26

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

Hello, the need here is to have a single LLVMContext used for multiple compilations. You make a good point about that by the way. If there are outstanding users cleaning the context under their seats might still pose a risk to them, and in that case deleting + newing a new LLVMContextImpl might actually not be very different. Marcello 2014-06-24 17:14 GMT+01:00 David Blaikie <dblaikie at

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

2011/11/15 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > 2011/11/14 Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es>: >> On 11/14/2011 02:45 PM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: >>> >>> 2011/11/14 Tobias Grosser<tobias at grosser.es>: >>>> >>>> On 11/14/2011 01:24 AM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Tobias.

Hi Marcello, Thanks for your reply. I will try to pass down the mask! I have one more question. In my backend I return CSR_RegMask in getCallPreservedMask and return CSR_SaveList in getCalleeSavedRegs. Is that a correct setup? I dumped the regmask and found that callee saved regs are marked 1 and non-callee saved regs are 0. Thanks, Xiaochu On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 5:58 PM Marcello Maggioni

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,

On 11/21/2011 12:44 PM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: > 2011/11/21 Tobias Grosser<tobias at grosser.es>: >> On 11/20/2011 04:36 PM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: >>> >>> Sorry for the noobish question, but what kind of subscripts generate a >>> SCEVCouldNotCompute from the SCEV engine? >>> I tried for a while but I wasn't able to trigger that >>

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,

Perfect, thank you very much :) 2011/10/26 Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es>: > On 10/24/2011 11:32 PM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: >> >> Strange , with --enable-shared (I use auto tool by the way ...) it gives: >> >> MacBook-Pro-di-Marcello:examples Kariddi$ ./compile_ex.sh >> not_so_simple_loop >> clang (LLVM option parsing): Unknown command line

I see the usecase for mixed language compilation (that’s probably why you fancy something like the side-effect thing instead right?) BTW if the other proposal passes can we basically assume that if a loop doesn’t have the sideeffect intrinsic in it is then removable? That patch seems to suggest that in its current state llvm is mostly broken for languages that consider all infinite loops as

2011/11/18 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > 2011/11/15 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: >> 2011/11/14 Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es>: >>> On 11/14/2011 02:45 PM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: >>>> >>>> 2011/11/14 Tobias Grosser<tobias at grosser.es>: >>>>> >>>>> On 11/14/2011 01:24

I was trying the new feature you introduce about printing out the graphs, so I updated my version of llvm/clang/polly synchronizing them to the last version, but I get this error launching clang (also , I recently switched to MacOS X for development): $ clang not_so_simple_loop.c -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang ${PATH_TO_POLLY_LIB}/LLVMPolly.dylib -mllvm -enable-polly-viewer -mllvm -enable-iv-rewrite

Sorry for the noobish question, but what kind of subscripts generate a SCEVCouldNotCompute from the SCEV engine? I tried for a while but I wasn't able to trigger that. 2011/11/20 Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es>: > On 11/20/2011 03:01 AM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: >> >> 2011/11/19 Tobias Grosser<tobias at grosser.es>: >>> >>> On 11/18/2011