Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "adpassestoemitmachinecode".
Did you mean:
addpassestoemitmachinecode
2012 Nov 14
2
[LLVMdev] Using LLVM to serialize object state -- and performance
The passes run are determined by TargetMachine::adPassesToEmitMachineCode (or addPassesToEmitMC in the case of MCJIT), which is called from the JIT constructor. You can step through that to see where the passes are coming from or you can create a custom target machine instance to control it.
-Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto...
2012 Nov 16
0
[LLVMdev] Using LLVM to serialize object state -- and performance
On Nov 13, 2012, at 6:15 PM, "Kaylor, Andrew" <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> wrote:
> The passes run are determined by TargetMachine::adPassesToEmitMachineCode (or addPassesToEmitMC in the case of MCJIT), which is called from the JIT constructor. You can step through that to see where the passes are coming from or you can create a custom target machine instance to control it.
Assuming I were to create a TargetMachine, any small examples of controlling i...
2012 Nov 14
0
[LLVMdev] Using LLVM to serialize object state -- and performance
I've been profiling more; see <https://dl.dropbox.com/u/46791180/perf.png>.
One thing I'm a bit confused about is why I see a FunctionPassManager there. I use a FunctionPassManager at the end of LLVM IR code generation, write the IR to disk, then read it back later.
Why is apparently another FunctionPassManager being used during the JIT'ing of the IR code? And how do I
2012 Nov 13
3
[LLVMdev] Using LLVM to serialize object state -- and performance
Switching to CodeGenOpt::None reduced the execution time from 5.74s to 0.84s. By just tweaking things randomly, changing to CodeModel::Small reduced it further to 0.22s.
We have some old, ugly, pure C++ code that we're trying to replace (both because it's ugly and because it's slow). It's execution time is about 0.089s, so that's the time to beat.
Hence, I'd like to