similar to: [LLVMdev] Question About the LLVM IR unnamed values!

After I spend some time working with the function attribute* deduction pass** [1,3], I would like to propose a "proper" organization***. Why? Because we do not derive nearly as many attributes as we could****, while we do maintain various (separate and diffently organized) "data-flow-like analyses" to do so. What else? I propose a single optimistic data-flow

Hi R-devel, If you did read my survey on Rhelp about reporting, you may have seen that I am implementing a way to handle outputs for R (mainly target output destinations: xHTML and TeX). In fact: I does have something that works for basic objects, entirely done with S4 classes, with the results visible at: http://www.stat.ucl.ac.be/ROMA/sample.htm http://www.stat.ucl.ac.be/ROMA/sample.pdf To

Hi Pranav, > I am not able to understand the No Signed Wrap property. My problem is in the > Instruction combiner which combines two operations - > add1 = add 'nsw' x 5 > add2 = add 'nsw' add1 1 > into > add2 = add x 6. // No 'nsw' property in the combined operation. > > From the comments in the Instruction Combiner I can see that the nsw flag /

I think I'm getting a bit closer to the problem. I've found that the call to InlineSpiller::foldMemoryOperand() inside InlineSpiller::spillAroundUses() is causing the problems. As a test, I removed that call and with your yesterday's patch I'm not getting any errors at all, the code generated is the same one as with the call. This is happening when

On 19 June 2011 15:46, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> I am not able to understand the No Signed Wrap property. My problem is in the >> Instruction combiner which combines two operations - >> add1 = add 'nsw' x 5 >> add2 = add 'nsw' add1 1 >> into >> add2 = add x 6.  // No 'nsw' property in the combined operation.

Hello, I am trying to figure out, what vrp propagation does in llvm. I tried this program: #include <stdio.h> int main() { int s = 0; int j = 0; for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { j = j+i+1; s+=j; } return (s+j); } And got this under optimized version ( I don't want everything to be eliminated) define i32 @main()

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Anastasiya Ruzhanskaya via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I am trying to print it like this (maybe here is smth wrong?) > > > LazyValueInfo &LV = getAnalysis<LazyValueInfoWrapperPass>().getLVI(); > DominatorTree &DT = > getAnalysis<DominatorTreeWrapperPass>().getDomTree(); > LV.printLVI(F,

Hi, I am not able to understand the No Signed Wrap property. My problem is in the Instruction combiner which combines two operations - add1 = add 'nsw' x 5 add2 = add 'nsw' add1 1 into add2 = add x 6. // No 'nsw' property in the combined operation. >From the comments in the Instruction Combiner I can see that the nsw flag / property is "conservatively

I am primarily interested in phi nodes and their induction variables, in ValueTracking file there is an analysis of them, but if the upper bound is inf, it is not working? 2017-08-07 11:41 GMT+02:00 Anastasiya Ruzhanskaya < anastasiya.ruzhanskaya at frtk.ru>: > So, it is not supported to determine by this instruction : %cmp = icmp slt > i32 %i.03, 99, > that %i.03 = phi i32 [ 0,

> Then why does the Release Note say > " the operation is guaranteed to not overflow". It means that the person who wrote the IR has guaranteed that there's no overflow (by some means) so LLVM can assume it during optimisation. This guarantee might come from doing explicit checks before executing the add/sub; or perhaps from performing the operation after a sext so that the

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 14:46:21 +0200, Stephan Bosch stated: >Op 21-6-2017 om 19:16 schreef lejeczek: >> hi fellas >> >> generic construct for(if possible): reply vacation message if >> address is not from add1 at com1 add2 at com2 >> >> would you share? > >require "vacation"; > >if not address "from" ["add1 at com1",

Op 23-6-2017 om 16:15 schreef Larry Rosenman: > On 6/23/17, 9:13 AM, "dovecot on behalf of Jerry" <dovecot-bounces at dovecot.org on behalf of jerry at seibercom.net> wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 14:46:21 +0200, Stephan Bosch stated: > > >Op 21-6-2017 om 19:16 schreef lejeczek: > >> hi fellas > >> > >>

Maybe it would illustrative to give an IR example of the case I'm interested in. Consider define void @"julia_transform_bvn_derivs_hessian!"(double* %data, double* %data2, double *%data3, double *%out) { %element11 = getelementptr inbounds double, double* %data, i32 1 %load10 = load double, double* %data %load11 = load double, double* %element11 %element21 =

It works, thank you, Andy. On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 19, 2013, at 1:04 AM, Eric Lu <eirc.lew at gmail.com> wrote: > > It seems the options still does not work, or I have misunderstood what you > said. > > The command: > clang -g -I/home/lxj/software/llvmsvn/include -emit-llvm $1.c -c -o > $1.bc

Hi, I am trying to understand the semantics of Instructions in llvm. Are the following instructions semantically same? * %add2 = add nsw i32 %add, %add1 %add3 = add i32 %add, %add1* Based on my understanding from the Language Reference Manual, I think they are different. But then why is the *gvn* pass detecting *%add3* as redundant and deleting it? Your views are appreciated. Rekha

Op 21-6-2017 om 19:16 schreef lejeczek: > hi fellas > > generic construct for(if possible): reply vacation message if address > is not from add1 at com1 add2 at com2 > > would you share? require "vacation"; if not address "from" ["add1 at com1", "add2 at com2"] { vacation "I am on vacation."; } Regards, Stephan.

On 6/23/17, 9:13 AM, "dovecot on behalf of Jerry" <dovecot-bounces at dovecot.org on behalf of jerry at seibercom.net> wrote: On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 14:46:21 +0200, Stephan Bosch stated: >Op 21-6-2017 om 19:16 schreef lejeczek: >> hi fellas >> >> generic construct for(if possible): reply vacation message if >> address is not

hi fellas generic construct for(if possible): reply vacation message if address is not from add1 at com1 add2 at com2 would you share? many thanks L.

To reproduce the issue, please use the command line "opt -simplifycfg filename". target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128" target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" %struct.G = type { %struct.ordered_index_node*, i32 } %struct.ordered_index_node = type { %struct.B, %struct.F } %struct.B = type { i32 } %struct.F = type { i32*, i32* }

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Rekha R <rekharamapai at nitc.ac.in> wrote: > Ok. Got it. > > If *add nsw* overflows, this results in undefined value. > But then *add* on same arguments results in well-defined value. > > Hence treating first one as redundant based on the second is acceptable. > But vice versa is not. > If they are in different code paths, sure.