similar to: [LLVMdev] Why the fault?

On 3 March 2014 12:32, Pete Cooper <peter_cooper at apple.com> wrote: > Would those work with a foreach construct? Perhaps I forgot to mention that was what I'm trying to work out here. > > In example 3 I was wondering if we could define a method reverse(). We could use sfinae to wrap that around rbegin/rend if people like that style? Sorry, I was too terse... ;) If MF is a

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:53 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > > On 3 March 2014 12:32, Pete Cooper <peter_cooper at apple.com> wrote: > >> Would those work with a foreach construct? Perhaps I forgot to mention > that was what I'm trying to work out

On 3 March 2014 12:13, Pete Cooper <peter_cooper at apple.com> wrote: > It would also be good to agree on a way to handle reverse iterators, especially on those which already use begin() and end() for going forwards. For example rbegin() and rend()? --renato

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:53 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > > On 3 March 2014 12:32, Pete Cooper <peter_cooper at apple.com> wrote: > >> Would those work with a foreach construct? Perhaps I forgot to mention > that was what I'm trying to work out

On Mar 2, 2014, at 10:27 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:53 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > > On 3 March 2014

Hi Gordon, Thanks for your comments. > > Constant.string(value, dont_null_terminate) -- value is a string > > Constant.struct(consts, packed) -- a struct, consts is a list of > > other constants, packed is boolean > > I did this in Ocaml initially, but found the boolean constants pretty > confusing to read in code. I kept asking "What's that random true

Fernando, The code there should be more or less functional, though it's not currently used by anything. Eventually it should probably be moved to a method on MachineBasicBlock. The API breakage you're seeing is because some methods moved around. Feel free to fix it. :-) --Owen On Jan 26, 2008, at 6:31 PM, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > > Hi LLVMers, > >

Hi LLVMers, what is the status of breaking critical edges in machine functions? I just compiled the top of the LLVM tree, and I found llvm/CodeGen/BreakCriticalMachineEdge.h. But this file seems not to be up-to-date with the other classes in the top of the tree. For instance, it calls isTerminatorInstr on llvm::TargetInstrInfo, but this method is no longer there. If I want to break

LLVM has two similar bits of infrastructure: a simplifyInstructionsInBlock function and a SimplifyInstructions pass, both intended to be lightweight “fix up this code without doing serious optimizations” functions, as far as I can tell. I don’t think either is used in a performance-sensitive place in-tree; the former is mostly called in minor places when doing CFG twiddling, and the latter seems

On May 11, 2008, at 07:36, Mahadevan R wrote: > Hi Gordon, > > Thanks for your comments. >> No problem. >> :) Type handles in particular are very important. You can't form a >> recursive type without using them, so you can't build any sort of >> data structure. > > On it already. BTW, where can I find a good example of how to use it? To close

Hi, All CallInsts should return true for Instruction::mayHaveSideEffects() because functions are not guaranteed to halt. Inliner::runOnSCC calls isInstructionTriviallyDead to determine whether code can be dead code eliminated. isInstructionTriviallyDead returns true if Instruction::mayHaveSideEffects() returns false. A function that potentially runs forever based on its input but does not write

Does any real code benefit from dead code eliminating read-only functions? Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Reid Kleckner" <rnk at mit.edu> To: "Thomas B. Jablin" <tjablin at CS.Princeton.EDU> Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 9:38:47 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [LLVMdev]

Hi guys, a question about updating memory SSA: Is it expected that e.g insertion of MemoryDef doesn't change all dominated uses? For example test case CreateLoadsAndStoreUpdater produces: define void @F(i8*) { ; 1 = MemoryDef(liveOnEntry) store i8 16, i8* %0 ; 4 = MemoryDef(1) store i8 16, i8* %0 br i1 true, label %2, label %3 ; <label>:2: ;

On 1 March 2014 19:24, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > for (auto V : X.foo()) { > ... > } +1 --renato

In particular, if you want to add support, the right way to know what to rename is (off the top of my head) add a flag or something to have renamepass reset all uses it sees (you only have to change the uses, defs are all linked together and thus already fixed by the updater). Right now it only does that if they have no defining access. Make it skip blocks already in the visited set (the

I am confused by this bit of code in instcombine: 09789 if (GetElementPtrInst *GEPI = dyn_cast<GetElementPtrInst>(Op)) { 09790 const Value *GEPI0 = GEPI->getOperand(0); 09791 // TODO: Consider a target hook for valid address spaces for this xform. 09792 if (isa<ConstantPointerNull>(GEPI0) && 09793

Hi, Can anyone tell me how to erase an instruction, (specially a load/store instruction) ? If I use Instr->eraseFromParent(), I get following error. Note the instruction does not have any use. opt: /home/chayan/llvm/llvm-2.6/include/llvm/ADT/ilist.h:218: llvm::ilist_iterator<NodeTy>& llvm::ilist_iterator<NodeTy>::operator++() [with NodeTy = llvm::Instruction]: Assertion

Hi, I am writing an llvm pass wherein I require to iterate MachineBasicBlocks in reverse. The ilist reverse_iterator is not functioning as expected. Nor is the ilist iterator working in reverse (although -- operator is overloaded to do so). for (MachineFunction::iterator MBBI = mf_->end(), E = mf_->begin();MBBI != E; --MBBI) { MachineBasicBlock *MBB = MBBI;

Hello all, I really, really, really need your help. This is my third email now, please don't ignore me! I understand this must be a trivial thing, but I've ground to a halt, and REALLY need some guidance. Please see below for the context of my problem. I'm not trying to be a waste of time, but I'm desperate here. I have a getAnalysisUsage method which does the following

Griffin Wright wrote: > > Hello all, > > I really, really, really need your help. This is my third email now, > please don't ignore me! I understand this must be a trivial thing, but > I've ground to a halt, and REALLY need some guidance. Please see below for > the context of my problem. I'm not trying to be a waste of time, but I'm > desperate here.