similar to: RFC: faster simplifyInstructionsInBlock/SimplifyInstructions pass

> > Instead of adding the operands to a list, erase the instruction and add them to the worklist wouldn’t be probably faster something like: > > if (Instruction *Used = dyn_cast<Instruction>(*OI)) > if (Used->hasOneUse()) > WorkList.insert(Used); > > If it has one use is going to be the instruction we are going to remove anyway, right? I don’t think this

tl;dr: I think we have too many different set classes. They have incompatible APIs and surprising behavior. I think we can reduce their number substantially. Dear all, The following is a subset of the set classes we have in ADT: * DenseSet * SmallDenseSet (https://reviews.llvm.org/D25628) * SetVector * SmallSetVector * SmallSet * SmallPtrSet * StringSet * FoldingSet *

UniqueVector is an stl map coupled with an stl vector[1], which seems very undesirable for you. As far as SmallVector + slow search, I believe that is precisely what the implementation of SmallSet does until it has to grow, after which it uses an stl set[2]. If you're always staying within your small number, SmallSetVector would be wasteful as the SmallSet would itself also have a SmallVector.

Hi, Thanks a lot for the help! It seems that the SmallSetVector is the ADT I need (interface-wise). Is more efficient than llvm::UniqueVector? In my use case I have to insert a new element in the structure only if the element is unique. I hardly expect more than 32 elements. Do you think I gain a lot if I use the SmallSetVector instead of using SmallVector + slow searching on every

Hi, I am writing an analysis which requires creating worklist of basic blocks. The worklist should be in FIFO order. I checked SmallVector (and similar others) and found out this is working in LIFO order when I use the functions push_back and pop_back_val to insert and delete elements in the worklist. Can someone suggest an appropriate DS to implement my worklist. Note: I am not concerned about

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Yea, I've noticed that. However, it looks like inst_iterator is iterator over > pointers. Oh, wait a minite, that's the current code: > > inline IIty operator*() const { return BI; } > inline IIty operator->() const { return operator*(); } > > So operator* works as if value_type is Instruction*, but operator->

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:58 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> There are a few places where we break the assumption:

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:58 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> There are a few places where we break the assumption: >> 1> formal_parameter constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute type >> we call SPCU->addType(Arg, ATy),

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > and since result of *it is considered to be rvalue it can't be accepted > > by this operator. The complete discussion is in > > > > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1385.htm > > > > I'd suggest to apply the following patch which makes operator* return >

Hi Adarsh, On 11/02/12 09:47, Adarsh Konchady wrote: > My pass in LLVM generates an IR like this > %5 = icmp eq i32 %4, 0 > %7 = or i1 %5, %5 > ;. . . > Since the 'or' instruction is actually not needed(dead code), I replaced all > occurences of %7 with %5. > Now, the 'or' instruction should get deleted. How can I call Dead Code > Elimination pass

Thank you David for prompt reply. I tried with SmallVector. I inserted elements with push_back(). But when I retrieve elements using pop_back_val the elements are returned in reverse order of insertion (I mean like LIFO order). I need this to be FIFO order. How to achieve that? Regards, Rekha On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 8:31 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > If you

If you don't care about efficiency you can push (or at least insert) at the front of a(small or otherwise) vector. On Nov 3, 2013 3:32 AM, "Rekha R" <rekharamapai at nitc.ac.in> wrote: > Hi, > > I am writing an analysis which requires creating worklist of basic blocks. > The worklist should be in FIFO order. I checked SmallVector (and similar > others) and found

Explicitly re-adding a node to be processed doesn't work, because the processing order is canonical. 2017-05-22 11:39 GMT-07:00 Nirav Davé <niravd at google.com>: > You can always explicitly add D to the worklist when you make the > transformation with AddToWorklist. Presuambly this was the cause for your > infinite loop. > > -Nirav > > > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at

The root problem is that, when A gets modified, D doesn't get added back to the worklist. I could match the pattern on A, but the problem remains: when D gets modified, A do not get added back tot he worklist. I also considered ding several round of DAGCombine, but it is very easy to run into infinite loops, even with a fair amount of sanity checks. 2017-05-22 7:30 GMT-07:00 Nirav Davé

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:32 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:58 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at

Hello all, I am a LLVM newer who want to obtain the use-def chain for all instruction of a sample code, for this purpose i use the following code. ///////////////sample code:///////////////////////// #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <time.h> #define ARRAY_SIZE 5 int main() { int x, y, holder; int k,z,f,i; z=0; f=0; k=0; for(x = 0; x < ARRAY_SIZE;

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Rekha R <rekharamapai at nitc.ac.in> wrote: > Thank you David for prompt reply. > > I tried with SmallVector. I inserted elements with push_back(). > But when I retrieve elements using pop_back_val the elements are returned > in reverse order of insertion (I mean like LIFO order). > I need this to be FIFO order. How to achieve that? >

----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Molloy via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Vaivaswatha Nagaraj" <vn at compilertree.com> > Cc: "LLVM Dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 4:41:46 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Function attributes for LibFunc and its impact on GlobalsAA > >

hi all this works <%= render :partial => "admin/works/work", :collection => @artist.works %> but this doesn''t <%= render :partial => "admin/works/worklist", :collection => @artist.works %> even though the partial _work.rhtml and _worklist.rhtml are identical. worklist.rhtml throws undefined local variable or method

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > > There are a few places where we break the assumption: > 1> formal_parameter constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute type > we call SPCU->addType(Arg, ATy), where Arg does not belong to SPCU. > 2> inlined_subroutine constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute >