similar to: [LLVMdev] How to test isDereferenceablePointer?

Philip Reames wrote: > T.M.K., there's no direct way to test it. There is. See the 'unittests/' directory which contains the C++ unit tests. See unittests/IR/UserTest.cpp for an example that builds up IR from a .ll-in-a-C-string then queries C++ API operations on it. Nick You have to construct a > transformation which happens with the information you added and not >

Given a pointer, does any addrspacecast affect the pointer's dereferenceablity ? For example, %pm = addrspaacecast float addrspacecast(n)* %pn to float addrspacecast(m)* %r = load float addrspace(m)* %pm In another word. the question is whether the following is true ? isDereferenceablePointer(pn) == isDereferenceablePointer(pm) [Note that the function is defined as

Hi, I've been debugging this issue for many hours, and would like a sanity check. The issue is that DL (DataLayout) is nullptr inside isDereferenceablePointer() no matter what I try. Why is DataLayout ever nullptr (shouldn't it get defaults?), and what should I do to make it non-nullptr? Thanks. Ram

Eric Christopher wrote: > How are you trying to call it? Do you have a DataLayout? In test/Analysis/ValueTracking/memory-dereferenceable.ll, just change byval to dereferenceable(8), and %dparam won't match (see lib/IR/Value.cpp:521 for the logic that is supposed to fire). How do I get it to pass? I tried introducing a target-triple and target-datalayout, but it didn't help.

Hi, There are several optimizations where we try to load speculatively. There are also two similar functions to determine whether it's a safe transformation: * isSafeToLoadUnconditionally * isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute isSafeToLoadUnconditionally tries to take load alignment into account but fails to do this in some cases. It checks alignment for pointers derived from allocas and global

Hello, I was wondering how you can identify whether or not an Argument is a pointer. The "isDereferenceablePointer" function for Values doesn't seem to be what I want (I don't care whether or not the pointer points to allocated memory or is suitably aligned). I want to be able to discern between: i32* %pArray and i32 %pArray Thanks in advance. - John

Hello, For the Glasgow Haskell Compiler's backend, we would like to let LLVM know that certain loads are safe to execute speculatively and hence to hoist out of loops. At the moment, there doesn't seem to be a mechanism for doing so. There seem to be two ways of implementing this: either allow arbitrary instructions to be marked as safe and have Instruction::isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute

On Jan 23, 2012, at 4:22 AM, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: > Hello, > > For the Glasgow Haskell Compiler's backend, we would like to let LLVM know > that certain loads are safe to execute speculatively and hence to hoist > out of loops. At the moment, there doesn't seem to be a mechanism for > doing so. There seem to be two ways of implementing this: either allow >

On 24/01/2012, at 20:39, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jan 23, 2012, at 4:22 AM, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> For the Glasgow Haskell Compiler's backend, we would like to let LLVM know >> that certain loads are safe to execute speculatively and hence to hoist >> out of loops. At the moment, there doesn't seem to be a mechanism for >>

You can use isPointerTy() in Type class. George On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:39 PM, John Backes <back0145 at umn.edu> wrote: > Hello, > > I was wondering how you can identify whether or not an Argument is a > pointer. The "isDereferenceablePointer" function for Values doesn't > seem to be what I want (I don't care whether or not the pointer points > to

On Dec 14, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > 2011/12/14 Rafael Ávila de Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>: >>> We first perform a speculation transformation, hoisting all of the >>> code above the %overflow_check branch: >>> >>> %t0 = add nsw i32 %a, %b >>> %t1 = sext i32 %t0 to i64 >>> %t2 = ashr i64 %t1, 31

> LICM on ToT hoists the div. Even speculatively. > > The other thing is that div is just one example. The problem could > also come up with an array load with an index could be safe to > speculate if the index is known to be bounded. isDereferenceablePointer > currently doesn't know how to do this, but it'll probably get > smarter some day. So, looking at just this

2011/12/14 Rafael Ávila de Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>: >> We first perform a speculation transformation, hoisting all of the >> code above the %overflow_check branch: >> >>   %t0 = add nsw i32 %a, %b >>   %t1 = sext i32 %t0 to i64 >>   %t2 = ashr i64 %t1, 31 >>   %t3 = add i64 %t2, 1 >>   %t5 = icmp ult %t3, 2 >>   %t6 =

Hi Everyone, I asked a question on the dev list related to the topic to which John Criswell and Jeremy Lakeman kindly provided some valuable insight. I'm still stuck on the issue and i'm hoping i didn't phrase the question well enough. I have a *foo.c* file that is : *#include <stdio.h>* *int foo(int a, int b){* * return a+b;* *}* *int main() {* *int x=foo(3,1); *

Morten, I've applied these patches. Thanks for the updates! Reid. On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 01:26, Morten Ofstad wrote: > Hi, > > when I updated the sources today there were several small problems that > stopped the windows version from compiling, here are the patches > > m. > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Index:

Hi, when I updated the sources today there were several small problems that stopped the windows version from compiling, here are the patches m. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: win32patches.txt URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20041115/34634455/attachment.txt>

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > Could someone please apply this patch to the Win32 support so that > Morten and Jeff can handle the recent changes? I can't do it because > I"m on the road with only email access. I'd be happy to do it. Can someone send me the patch as an attachment off-list? -Chris > > <Tool > >

Sorry for the rapid fire replies, but this configuration works for me: install(DIRECTORY include/ DESTINATION include # FILES_MATCHING PATTERN "*.def" PATTERN "*.h" PATTERN "*.td" PATTERN "*.inc" PATTERN ".svn" EXCLUDE ) install(DIRECTORY ${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR}/include/ DESTINATION include # FILES_MATCHING PATTERN

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Samuel Williams <space.ship.traveller at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I might just be doing something stupid, but when I do > > $ cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr/local/llvm-2.8 -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release .. > $ sudo make install > > I don't get the expected headers in >        /usr/local/llvm-2.8/include/llvm > > It is

Could someone please apply this patch to the Win32 support so that Morten and Jeff can handle the recent changes? I can't do it because I"m on the road with only email access. Thanks, Reid. -----Forwarded Message----- > From: Morten Ofstad <morten at hue.no> > To: Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> > Subject: Updated LLVM Visual Studio project files > Date: Thu,