similar to: [LLVMdev] Boolean simplification in LLVM

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:50 AM, mats petersson <mats at planetcatfish.com> wrote: > It will iterate over the instructions in the order that they are stored in > the module/function/basicblock that they belong to. And that SHOULD, > assuming llvm-dis does what it is expected to do, be the same order. > Thanks for the reply. What about instruction ordering across basic blocks?

On 6/16/15 1:09 AM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > Anirudh Sivaraman wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:50 AM, mats >> petersson<mats at planetcatfish.com> wrote: >>> It will iterate over the instructions in the order that they are >>> stored in >>> the module/function/basicblock that they belong to. And that SHOULD, >>> assuming llvm-dis does

On 6/29/15 5:16 AM, Evgeny Astigeevich wrote: > Hi Anirudh, > > 'x' has a control dependency on 'y' because the value assigned to 'x' > depends on a path selected. This dependency can be converted into a data > dependency by means of a 'select' instruction because the control flow is > simple. Just an FYI, there is an optimization called

Does inst_iterator (http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#iterating-over-the-instruction-in-a-function) guarantee that the iterated instructions are in program order: the order of instructions printed by llvm-dis? Thanks in advance, Anirudh

On Jun 29, 2015 3:16 AM, "Evgeny Astigeevich" <evgeny.astigeevich at arm.com> wrote: > > Hi Anirudh, > > 'x' has a control dependency on 'y' because the value assigned to 'x' > depends on a path selected. This dependency can be converted into a data > dependency by means of a 'select' instruction because the control flow is >

I am trying to infer data dependencies using LLVM's def-use chains and I am having trouble dealing with 'phi' instructions. Specifically, If I am given the code snippet: int foo() { int y = 1; int x; if (y) { x = 2; } else { x = 3; } return x; } Here, x has a data dependence on y (not control because x is assigned in both halves), but LLVM expresses 'x'

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Evgeny Astigeevich <Evgeny.Astigeevich at arm.com> wrote: > Hi Anirudh, > > > > I hope these lecture slides about SSA and the dominance frontier will help > you with SSA and control flow analysis: > > > > http://www.seas.harvard.edu/courses/cs252/2011sp/slides/Lec04-SSA.pdf > > > > Unfortunately a use of

Hello I am anirudh, I need help to write script to fetch detail like ips, speedlimit from mysql and add htb rules at the starting of the server. it is for a small isp i am working for. can any one help me out!, i had tried but fail to limit speed -- Anirudh Chowdary _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl

Hi! I am dealing with random forest using R. Is there a way to sample a fixed no.of rows from a dataset for use with different trees in random Forest. To be more clear, my data set contains 1500 rows, and I am growing 500 trees in Random Forest Is it possible to sample only 500 rows of data from the data set and use it for different trees in the forest. I mean each tree of the forest should use

Hi all! The randomForest in R enables us to prune the trees using the nodesize feature where we can stop splitting a node if it contains less than the specified no.of of records/entities at that node. However is there a way to stop the tree growing after a specified number of levels. To be more clear on what I mean by a level. Level 0 is the parent node, Level 1 has 2 daughter nodes, Level 2 has

Folks, I have a dataframe (snippet shown below). > demo.df[1:10, 1:6] dirn county year exp exp.wave r3 1 43901 Cuyahoga 2006 0 0 56 2 49098 Pickaway 2006 0 0 77 3 44164 Portage 2006 0 0 85 4 44610 Wayne 2006 1 1 76 5 45120 Wayne 2006 0 0 82 6 49593 Scioto 2006 1 1 89 7 46516 Crawford 2006 0 0

Hi. I'm trying to vectorize the following piece of code with Loop Vectorizer (from LLVM distribution Nov 2015), but no vectorization takes place: int *Test(int *res, int *c, int *d, int *p) { int i; for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) { //res[i] = (p[i] == 0) ? c[i] : d[i]; res[i] = (p[i] == 0) ? res[i] : res[i] + d[i];

Hi, > On Apr 22, 2016, at 8:27 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > The problem here is that the d[i] array is only conditionally accessed, and so we can't if-convert the loop body. The compiler does not know that d[i] is actually dereferenceable for all i from 0 to 15 (the array might be shorter and p[i] is 0 for i past the end

Apologies if this has come up before. I couldn't find any previous discussion, but I did find this commit. I was wondering why LLVM cannot optimize this code (which GCC does optimize): int f(int *p) { int x; return p == &x; } it would seem that this must always return 0. (This occurs as a self-assignment check in the code I was looking at; I was hoping we could fold that check away.)

Hi folks, I'm hitting the below assertion failure when compiling this small piece of C code (repro.c, attached). My command line is: bin/clang --target=aarch64-linux-gnu -c -O2 repro.c clang is built from top of trunk as of this morning. It only happens at -O2, and it doesn't happen with the default target (x86_64). I tried to reproduce using just 'llc -O2' but didn't

Hi all I have an ADSL modem which reboots when there is a power cut and the inverter (UPS) kicks in. Internet access is down for a duration of 1 to 2 minutes while the modem boots. I have many SSH tunnels and shells active. Due to the default "TCPKeepAlive On" setting, these sessions are terminated almost immediately. I tried the following configuration: sshd_config on server:

I threw together a patch which implements this (attached.) If we decide that this is actually a legal transform, I'm happy to post this for review. In addition to the version proposed here, I also implemented a case where a trivially escaped alloca's address is not equal to any other value. I believe both are valid, but we should confirm. Philip On 09/24/2015 02:34 PM, Aaron

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: >> I was wondering why LLVM cannot optimize this code (which GCC does optimize): >> >> int f(int *p) { int x; return p == &x; } >> >> it would seem that this must always return 0. (This

On 09/24/2015 06:04 PM, Hans Wennborg wrote: > I tried your patch on a Clang build to see if it would fire. It > reduced the size of a bootstrap with 8500 bytes. Not huge, but it > seems like a nice improvement. And maybe it could be made more > powerful: not just checking if the address is a param or alloca, but > an address based on such values. Yeah, I realized after posting that

Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9? Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to InstructionSimplify.cpp, not InstCombineSelect.cpp? On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > Hi Hans - > > Yes, I think this is a good patch for 3.9 (cc'ing David Majnemer as code > owner). The functional change was