similar to: [LLVMdev] Interest in LLVM

Hi all, I'm a 3rd year CSE B.Tech student and have been studying LLVM since the past year. I have written a pass for doing register allocation as part of my course project and have also been studying LLVM code sections related to SSA construction, dominance frontiers,etc. I also made some contributions to the Polly project. Currently I am interested in improving the existing alias analysis

Hi all, I want to match addition with 16bit integers. So I define a pattern fragment as follows: def simm16 : PatLeaf<(imm), [{ return isInt<16>(N->getSExtValue()); }]>; Now I am confused between (add R32:$dst, simm16:$im) and (add R32:$dst, (i32 simm16:$im)). Do both of them match the same pattern? Are they equivalent? If not what is the difference? I am also confused as to how

You are right about your interpretation of "dead". The case here is that RSP is a reserved register and so its liveness isn't really tracked. The "implicit-def dead" is an idiom used to mean that the register (reserved or not) is clobbered. The other implicit uses/defs can come from instruction definitions to indicate that this instruction uses and/or modifies a given

Hal, Tobias, et al. – I am strongly in favor of seeing a broader range of loop transformations, supported by strong dependence analysis, added to LLVM, and the Polly infrastructure seems to be by far our best bet to make that happen. I have a couple of questions: 1) Integer constraint libraries like ISL (and Omega, which I used extensively in a previous project) are fundamentally solving

Hi, If we add multiple loop passes to the pass manager in PassManagerBuilder.cpp consecutively without any func/module pass in between, I used to think they would belong to the same loop pass manager. But it does not seem to be the case. For example for this code snippet PM.add(createIndVarSimplifyPass()); // Canonicalize indvars MPM.add(createLoopIdiomPass()); //

Hello, According to my understanding, it seems that the result of realloc will not technically alias the original pointer. When the realloc is done in-place the reference <http://en.cppreference.com/w/c/memory/realloc> says: "The original pointer ptr is invalidated and any access to it is undefined behavior (even if reallocation was in-place)." Additionally from the C11 standard

I think this has to do with how the pass manager is populated when we give -O3 vs when we give particular pass names. Some passes have multiple createXYZPass() methods that accept arguments too. These methods call non-default pass constructors, which in turn cause the passes to behave in a different manner. eg: Pass *llvm::createLICMPass() { return new LegacyLICMPass(); } Pass

Hi, My understanding of a "dead" register is a def that is never used. However, when I dump the MI after reg alloc on a simple program I see the following sequence: ADJCALLSTACKDOWN64 0, 0, 0, *implicit-def dead %rsp*, implicit-def dead %eflags, implicit-def dead %ssp, implicit %rsp, implicit %ssp CALL64pcrel32 @foo, <regmask %bh %bl %bp %bpl %bx %ebp %ebx %rbp %rbx %r12 %r13 %r14

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017, at 20:49, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev wrote: > [tying to original thread] > > On 09/04/2017 01:37 PM, Adve, Vikram Sadanand via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hal, Tobias, et al. – > > > > I am strongly in favor of seeing a broader range of loop transformations, supported by strong dependence analysis, added to LLVM, and the Polly infrastructure seems to be by far

On 26 Dec 2017, at 10:13, Bhatu via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > According to my understanding, it seems that the result of realloc will not technically alias the original pointer. When the realloc is done in-place the reference says: > "The original pointer ptr is invalidated and any access to it is undefined behavior (even if reallocation was

Can you guys post a demo of your application ? Would be great. Thanks, Pratik -- rm -rf / 2>/dev/null - http://null.in

I want to install Ruby 1.8.7 and Rails 2.8.3,i am using ubuntu 11. Thank you -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

Dear, Can anybody comment on inserting inline assembly in LLVM IR? -- Pratik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140620/03400e95/attachment.html>

I''m having a class called Person, with subclasses as goalkeeper, forward, defender. Now a person can be a forward as well as a defender or a goalkeeper. I want to use single table inheritance like : class Goalkeepr < Person end And not have multiple boolean columns like in my people table like is is_goalkpeer, is_forward, is_defender. How do I go about it ? Thanks, Pratik -- rm

Last 2 articles have 500+ comments. Also, whenever I comment, it never appears immediately. It terribly needs an upgrade. -Pratik -- rm -rf / 2>/dev/null - http://null.in

Dear, I have the following problem. I am given 2 instructions say I1 and I2 whose selection should depend on the operands. Say the operands have a boolean attribute 'attr'. I would like to select I1 and I2 by some logic that involves the 'attr' attribute of all the operands involved. eg: If all operands have attr set to True, I want I1 to be selected to operate else I2. How can I

So that we can write controller code inside helpers ? are we supposed to do that ? -Pratik -- rm -rf / 2>/dev/null - http://null.in "Things do not happen. Things are made to happen." - JFK

Hi folks, I have following in my view : =================== <div class="foo"> <%= select ''theme'', "id", Theme.find_all.collect {|t| [ t.name, t.id ] }, { :prompt => ''Select a theme'' } %> </div> <%= observe_field( :theme_id, :update => :my_style, :url => { :action => :themelookup, :id => @space,},

I want to have a field in model, which I''m not storing in a database. And I want to do something like the following in the model code : validates_format_of :field_NOT_in_db, :with => session[:field] How can I do it ? Thanks, Pratik -- rm -rf / 2>/dev/null - http://null.in

Dear, I am looking at the Instructions defined in the XXXXInstrInfo.td where I can see a def record defined like below def ADD8rr : I8rr<0x0, (outs GR8:$dst), (ins GR8:$src, GR8:$src2), "add.b\t{$src2, $dst}", [(set GR8:$dst, (*add *GR8:$src, GR8:$src2)), (implicit SRW)]>; Now here I would like the to