similar to: [LLVMdev] [GSoc] Liveness Based Flow Sensitive Pointer Analysis for GSoc 2015

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, 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()); //

Hi, I see things like this. What does it mean? Is it documented somewhere? Thanks. ; preds = %for.body https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html ; <label>:91: ; preds = %88 %92 = load i8**, i8*** @glob_complete_word.matches, align 8, !dbg !99798 %93 = load i32, i32* @glob_complete_word.ind, align 4, !dbg !99799 %94 = sext i32 %93 to i64, !dbg !99798

Hello everyone, My name is Pratik Bhatu, I am a bachelor student currently studying at IIT Hyderabad, India.  I just finished my Compilers course have been exploring LLVM since the past month (kaleidoscope, writing LLVM passes) and am interested in the llvm-polly project. I am also a potential GSoC applicant and wanted to start working on the project from now. Is there a way I can

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

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

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

The GVN algorithm used in LLVM currently (I'm rewriting it) is the basic hash based RPO algorithm. The new one i'm writing is based on http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=512536 (see https://github.com/dberlin/llvm-gvn-rewrite) LLVM has different algorithms for both scalar PRE and load PRE. They are basically variants of standard PRE algorithms transformed into SSA, but with some

On 8/8/19 2:03 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: Hi, First, as a high-level note, you posted a link to a Google doc, and at the end of the Google doc, you have a list of questions that you'd like answered. In the future, please put the questions directly in the email. For one thing, more people will read your email than will open your Google doc. Second, having the questions in the email should allow a

Hello all, We are students from Indian Institute of Technology(IIT), Hyderabad, we would like to propose the addition of the following pragmas in LLVM that aide in (or possibly increase the scope of) vectorization in LLVM (in comparison with other compilers). 1. ivdep 2. Nontemporal 3. [no]vecremainder 4. [no]mask_readwrite 5. [un]aligned Could you please

> There is a fundamental problem with the way that ivdep is defined by Intel's current documentation, at least for C/C++. As you note in your Google doc, it essentially says that the optimizer may ignore loop-carried dependencies except for those dependencies it can definitely prove are present. These are not semantics that any other compiler can actually replicate, and is not equivalent to

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

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

> On Oct 10, 2016, at 2:50 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > > From: "Dangeti Tharun kumar via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> > To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Cc: "Santanu Das" <cs15mtech11018 at iith.ac.in <mailto:cs15mtech11018 at

Dear Admin, It seems that mails from our iit.ac.in domain are being marked as spam. It would be nice if something could be done about this. Best Regards Ramakrishna On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:12 AM, Aditya Kamath < adityakamath+llvmdev at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > (I received many emails that my posts were marked spam, so I am re-sending > this from another email address

Dear community, Our team at IITH have been experimenting with loop-distribution pass in LLVM. We see the following results on few benchmarks. clang -O3 -mllvm -enable-loop-distribute -Rpass=loop-distribute file.c clang -O3 -mllvm -enable-loop-distribute -Rpass-analysis=loop-distribute file.c TORCH

Ugh, that would be a “yes” then… -- Krzysztof Parzyszek kparzysz at quicinc.com<mailto:kparzysz at quicinc.com> AI tools development From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 10:05 AM To: Dangeti Tharun kumar <cs15mtech11002 at iith.ac.in>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: [EXT] Re:

Hello everyone I am Rakshit Singla, a third year undergrad at IIT Hyderabad, India. I finished a basic compilers course last semester and am currently doing a compiler optimizations course. I have been exploring LLVM for the past few months (wrote a front-end for the Classroom Object Oriented Language and have been studying pieces of code.) I would like to work with LLVM and contribute to the

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