similar to: How to invoke simplifycfg from code

Okay, as far as I can see looking through the output of that, the empty block isn't created near the end, it exists at the start and never goes away. On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > Hi Russell, > > Can you run your IR though opt with -O3 and -print-after-all and see when > the block becomes empty?

Yes, that is what I was thinking. Should I report it as a bug? On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Russell Wallace" <russell.wallace at gmail.com> > > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> >

Hello list, I'm currently investigating the use of LLVM for a project. For example, if I have a function like int a(int x, int y) { if (P == 0) { return x - y; } else { return y - x; } } and P could be considered constant, one of the code paths could be optimized out. Now I want to load a compiled bitcode file into a CFG, replace all occurrences of P with the value (either 0

Hi Andreas, > I'm currently investigating the use of LLVM for a project. For example, > if I have a function like > > int a(int x, int y) { > if (P == 0) { > return x - y; > } else { > return y - x; > } > } > > and P could be considered constant, one of the code paths could be > optimized out. Now I want to load a compiled bitcode

Hi Dmitri, For what version of VS did you update the project files? Ted On May 17, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Dmitri Makarov wrote: > attached is the diff of vcprojs that need to be changed to fix the VS > build as of revision: 51224. > > I don't know if this catches all the missing bits, but this does build > all the way through. > > > Index: win32/Analysis/Analysis.vcproj

Hi, I am expieriencing strange behaviour of llvm's optimization passes and I don't understand what I am doing wrong. Basically all I've done is extracting code for optimization of a llvm-function in a llvm-module and put it into a separate function for better readability. The original code looks like follows (and works as expected): ----------------------------- std::string

Hello guys, Do we have a pass to do unconditional branch folding except the one in Codegen? I checked in the lib/Transforms/Scalar, did not see any promising one. thank you, yuanfang

Hello We are migrating from 2.9 to 3.2 Here is some code that does not compile any more llvm::PassManager *pm; llvm::FunctionPassManager *fpm; module = llvm::ParseBitcodeFile(mb,context,&err_str); if (!module) { error() <<"Failed to load module from bitcode file: " <<err_str <<endl; exit(1); } pm = new PassManager();

attached is the diff of vcprojs that need to be changed to fix the VS build as of revision: 51224. I don't know if this catches all the missing bits, but this does build all the way through. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: msvs.patch URL:

On 2008-12-19, at 06:59, Ralf Karrenberg wrote: > I am expieriencing strange behaviour of llvm's optimization passes > and I don't understand what I am doing wrong. > Basically all I've done is extracting code for optimization of a > llvm-function in a llvm-module and put it into a separate function > for better readability. The original code looks like follows

Hello all, I have a question related to noduplicate attribute. For example, if I have the following source code: __attribute__((noduplicate)) __attribute__((always_inline)) void wait () { // some code barrier(); // some code } __attribute__((noduplicate)) void barrier (); void f () { // some code wait(); // some code } Sometimes I observed a phenomenon that

>I just sent a reply to Razvan with 3 patches that I think should be merged >into the release branch. I want to keep it somewhat in sync with mainline. >Can you try applying those 3 patches and let me know if it builds for you >and what version of MSVC you have? It doesn't build. first problem is patch 51098 that adds lib\VMCore\Use.cpp and lib\Transforms\Utils\UnrollLoop.cpp

Hi everyone, I'm currently trying to run a study on irreducibility of C programs, and I've implemented structural analysis (original paper by Sharir, algorithm in Muchnick's book) as an LLVM pass. When my implementation becomes a bit less buggy I'll certainly look into including it in the LLVM project. As a test for the algorithm I've been producing LLVM bitcode for C files

We're thinking about running our own buildbot against the upstream llvm and clang sources. I'm talking to our build folks and seeing what they can allow. Maybe we can contribute some build slaves to the osuosl buildbot but I'm not sure. If we do end up having to run our own buildbot, what's the best way to integrate that into the upstream web page and status notifier? Basically,

It looks like createCFGSimplificationPass was disabled on 2006/09/04. This causes some problems for architectures that use conditional moves to implement select (alpha and ARM). For example, on 2006/09/03 a "if (a) return 0; else return 1;" compiled to ---------------------------------------- zapnot $17,15,$1 zapnot $16,15,$2 bis $31,$31,$0 cmpeq $2,$1,$1

Hi, This is Ariel from the Rust team again. I am having another pass ordering issue. Looking at the pass manager at https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/7034870f30320d6fbc74effff539d946018cd00a/lib/Transforms/IPO/PassManagerBuilder.cpp (the early SimplifyCfg now doesn't sink stores anymore! I can't wait until I can get to use that in rustc!) I find that the loop optimization group

The following function compiles with -O3 into the following IR. http://llvm.org/docs/Passes.html#simplifycfg-simplify-the-cfg says - Eliminates a basic block that only contains an unconditional branch. but the first and third blocks in the compiled function only contain an unconditional branch; I would have expected them to be eliminated. What am I missing? double f(double *a) { for (int i

You're right, it can indeed. Is there a reason -O3 doesn't do this? I had been expecting -O3 to perform full optimization. The first block still remains in any case. Is the first block needed for some purpose I'm not taking into account? On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 5:27 AM, Xiangyang Guo <eceguo at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > if you use opt -simplifycfg, the third BB can

Eugene Toder wrote: > Would it make sense to have a similar pass that operates on llvm main IR? > The unify exit return node (-mergereturn?) pass should take care of the first example. The -simplifycfg option might take care of the second example. Both work on LLVM IR. -- John T. > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> wrote: > >>

Hi! I'm working on ASan option that uses llvm.lifetime intrinsics to detect use-after-scope bugs. In short, the idea is to insert calls into ASan runtime that would mark the memory as "addressable" or "unaddressable". I see the following problem with the following "trivial" basic block: for.body.lr.ph.i: ; preds = %for.body.i310