similar to: [LLVMdev] [polly] scev codegen (first step to remove the dependence on ivcanon pass)

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012, at 08:46 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > Hi Tobi, > > I would like to remove the SCEVRewriter code and replace it with a call > to > SCEVAddRec::apply (see attached a patch that adds just this function). > More > precisely I want to add another function called apply_map that applies a > map > (loop -> expr) on a given scev. This is the apply

Tobias Grosser wrote: > You create a map from the old_loop to a symbolic expression. What type would > this symbolic expression have? Would it be a SCEVExpr? evaluateAtIteration takes a scev, so apply will take a scev, or a map (loop->scev). You can always build a ScevUnknown from an SSA name and use that in the apply. > At the moment, we calculate at the beginning of each >

The attached file contains some simple functions that manipulate volatile varibles. The functions near the top of the file should turn into code that loads from x and then stores to it. The LLVM version on the web (not sure if it's the latest...) gets most of these wrong. John Regehr -------------- next part --------------

Dear guRus, I would like to loop over a medium amount of Sweave code, including both R and LaTeX chunks. Is there any way to do so? As an illustration, can I create a .tex file like this using a loop within a .Rnw file, where the "1,2,3" comes from some iteration variable in R? ################################################ \documentclass{article} \usepackage{Sweave} \begin{document}

On Aug 11, 2008, at 2:02 PM, Benedict Gaster wrote: > We would like to develop a code generator using LLVM for a target > language that does not support conditional branches and in fact only > supports structured control flow, eg. If and while. What's the difference between an "if" and a conditional branch? > As far as I can tell that the problem with doing this in

We would like to develop a code generator using LLVM for a target language that does not support conditional branches and in fact only supports structured control flow, eg. If and while. As far as I can tell that the problem with doing this in LLVM today, is that it does not support these high-level constructs and instead all control flow is implemented as branches. It is ³fairly²

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:09:02PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 04:22:14PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 06:04:03PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 06:55:28PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote: > > > > Libguestfs supports passing an ISO image as a source of virtio windows > > > > drivers

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 06:52:55PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:09:02PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 04:22:14PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 06:04:03PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 06:55:28PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote: > > > > > Libguestfs

On 07/27/2011 03:11 PM, Jimborean Alexandra wrote: > Hello, > > How can I compute the functions on the loop iterators used as array > indices? > > For example: > > for i = 0, N > for j = 0, M > A[2*i + j - 10] = ... > > Can I obtain that this instruction A[2*i + j - 10]= .. always accesses > memory using a function f(i,j) = 2*i + j - 10 + base_address_of_A

Hi, Comments inline. Ben On 12/08/2008 03:14, "Owen Anderson" <resistor at mac.com> wrote: >> We would like to develop a code generator using LLVM for a target language >> that does not support conditional branches and in fact only supports >> structured control flow, eg. If and while. What's the difference between an "if" and a conditional

Hello, How can I compute the functions on the loop iterators used as array indices?  For example: for i = 0, N       for j = 0, M             A[2*i + j - 10] = ...  Can I obtain that this instruction A[2*i + j - 10]= .. always accesses memory using a function       f(i,j)   =   2*i + j - 10 + base_address_of_A If I run the scalar evolution pass on this code I obtain: %arrayidx =

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 05:11:52PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 06:52:55PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:09:02PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 04:22:14PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 06:04:03PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote: > > > > > On

Hello Tobi, You are right, we need to run some other passes before running the scalar evolution pass. The sequence that I run for this example is -O3 -loop-simplify -reg2mem.  This is why I did not obtain the expressions depending on the loop indices. So I removed the reg2mem pass and scalar evolution computes the correct functions. However, I need to run the reg2mem pass (or any other that