similar to: [LLVMdev] Loads moving across barriers

I'm attempting to modify a parser generator to emit LLVM code instead of C. So far the experience has been trivial, but I am now running into an error regarding labels that I can't seem to solve. Situation 1: A label is used immediately after a void function call (l6 in this case): <snip> %tmp26 = load i32* @yybegin, align 4 %tmp27 = load i32* @yyend, align 4 call void

Hello Micah, I first apologize for the mail length, but I think that using an example would be better to clarify the case and the objections. > [Micah Villmow] In the case of OpenCL, you can't correctly use the standard C calling convention and still be OpenCL compliant, the C calling convention is too permissive. The second you use OpenCL, you are using an OpenCL specific calling

David Peixotto <dmp <at> rice.edu> writes: > I am seeing the wf loop get optimized just fine with llvm 2.8 (and almost as good with head). I rechecked this and am I actually seeing the same results as you. I think I must have made a stupid mistake in my tests before - sorry for the noise. However, I found that we have a phase ordering problem which is preventing us getting as much

Hi, I'm trying to solve a problem from StructurizeCFG not actually handling regions with multiple exits. Sample IR attached. StructurizeCFG doesn't touch this function, exiting early on the isTopLevelRegion check. SIAnnotateControlFlow then gets confused and ends up inserting an if into one of the blocks, and the matching end.cf into one of the return/unreachable blocks. The input to

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > To: "Louis Gerbarg" <lgg at apple.com> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 7:09:49 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: Indexing of structs vs arrays in getelementpointer > > > > >

On May 22, 2014, at 3:51 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Louis Gerbarg <lgg at apple.com> wrote: > The problem that the above transform is technically illegal because “When indexing into a (optionally packed) structure, only i32 integer constants are allowed (when using a vector of indices they must all be the same

Hi Mikael, You are obtaining warning, not an error, right? The most arm cores, including arm1136, can execute mul with rd = rm. So, you can ignore this warning. Lauro 2007/6/12, Peltier, Mikael <m-peltier at ti.com>: > > > > > Hello, > > > > I want to compile a LLVM file into an executable running on ARM platform. > > I use LLVM 2.0 with the following

Hello, I want to compile a LLVM file into an executable running on ARM platform. I use LLVM 2.0 with the following command lines: llvm-as -f -o test.bc test.ll llc -march=arm -mcpu=arm1136j-s -mattr=+v6 -f -o test.s test.bc arm-linux-gnu-as -mcpu=arm1136j-s test.s With the last command, I obtain the following error: rd and rm should be different in mul The bad instruction is

Recently I posted a patch to migrate certain GEPs between basic blocks in cases where doing so would improve the ability of instcombine to merge into more complicated addressing mode (r209049 and r209065). After some build to failures it was rolled back. I now have a patch that no longer causes the regressions I was seeing, but it also no longer can optimize the case I was trying to optimize. As

Hi, Scalar evolution seems to be wrapping around the trip count in the following loop. void add (int *restrict a, int *restrict b, int *restrict c) { char i; for (i = 0; i < 255; i++) a[i] = b[i] + c[i]; } When I run scalar evolution on the bit code, I get a backedge-taken count which is obviously wrong. $> cat loop.ll ; Function Attrs: nounwind define void @add(i32* noalias

--- silk/NSQ.c | 18 ++------------- silk/NSQ.h | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++ silk/arm/NSQ_neon.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ silk/arm/NSQ_neon.h | 10 ++++++++ 4 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/silk/NSQ.c b/silk/NSQ.c index d8513dc..ec81f3b 100644 --- a/silk/NSQ.c +++ b/silk/NSQ.c @@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ void

--- silk/NSQ.c | 18 ++------------- silk/NSQ.h | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++ silk/arm/NSQ_neon.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ silk/arm/NSQ_neon.h | 10 ++++++++ 4 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/silk/NSQ.c b/silk/NSQ.c index d8513dc..ec81f3b 100644 --- a/silk/NSQ.c +++ b/silk/NSQ.c @@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ void

Hi, I have the following test case: define void @foo(<2 x float>* noalias nocapture %out, <2 x float>* noalias nocapture %data0) nounwind { entry: %val1 = load <2 x float>* %data0, align 8 store <2 x float> %val1, <2 x float>* %out, align 8 fence acq_rel %val2 = load <2 x float>* %data0, align 8 store <2 x float> %val2, <2 x float>*

Hello, I would like to use the parfm package: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/parfm/parfm.pdfhttps://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/parfm/parfm.pdf in my work. This package fits parametric frailty models to survival data. To ensure I was using it properly, I started by running some small simulations to generate some survival data (without any random effects), and analyse the data using

Hi guys, we have a rebalance running on eight bricks since July and this is what the status looks like right now: ===Tue Oct 18 13:45:01 CST 2011 ==== rebalance step 1: layout fix in progress: fixed layout 223623 There are roughly 8T photos in the storage,so how long should this rebalance take? What does the number (in this case) 22362 represent? Our gluster infomation: Repository

I'm running a samba pdc on my gentoo box in a mixed environment with a couple of Windows XP clients and only a few MacOSX clients. The users told me, the file locking across the platforms does not work properly sometimes. I tried to google my problem, but without luck. I switched all the flags related the lock mechanism of samba on and off, but the problem seems to be solved yet. The only

I'm trying to manually garbage data on bricks (when the volume is stopped) and then check whether healing is possible. For example: Start: # glusterd --debug Bricks (on EXT4 mounted with 'rw,realtime'): # mkdir /root/data0 # mkdir /root/data1 # mkdir /root/data2 Volume: # gluster volume create gv0 replica 3 [local-ip]:/root/data0 [local-ip]:/root/data1 [local-ip]:/root/data2

I want to analyse data with an unordered, multi-level outcome variable, y. I am asking for the appropriate method (or R procedure) to use for this analysis. > N <- 500 > set.seed(1234) > data0 <- data.frame(y = as.factor(sample(LETTERS[1:3], N, repl = T, + prob = c(10, 12, 14))), x1 = sample(1:7, N, repl = T, prob = c(8, + 8, 9, 15, 9, 9, 8)), x2 = sample(1:7, N, repl =

Hello, I upgraded to llvm 2.8 and when I generate *.ll files from C/C++ with clang -S -emit-llvm I obtain a *.ll file in which instructions and basicblocks have no names. I tried as well compiling with the -g option, but no names were given. In the release notes it is indicated to use "--show-annotations" to print the number of uses. Is there something similar for assigning names to

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Guo, Xiaoyi <Xiaoyi.Guo at amd.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I have the following test case: > > define void @foo(<2 x float>* noalias nocapture %out, <2 x float>* > noalias nocapture %data0) nounwind { > entry: > %val1 = load <2 x float>* %data0, align 8 > store <2 x float> %val1, <2 x float>* %out,