search for: backendutils

I see the BackendUtil.cpp of Clang creates the TargetMachine with the optimization level based on below mentioned logic CodeGenOpt::Level OptLevel = CodeGenOpt::Default; switch (CodeGenOpts.OptimizationLevel) { default: break; case 0: OptLevel = CodeGenOpt::None; break; case 3: OptLevel = CodeGenOpt::Aggressive; break; } As per my understanding, the correspondence between

I want the optimization to be turned on at -O1 and above. In my case, it is a target independent back-end pass. (Eg: MachinePipeliner) On 2017-01-04 18:10, Mehdi Amini wrote: >> On Jan 4, 2017, at 4:03 PM, Sumanth Gundapaneni via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> I see the BackendUtil.cpp of Clang creates the TargetMachine with >> the

getOptLevel() gets the level from TargetMachine which is created by the Backendutil in clang with either "Default", "None" or "Aggressive". Threre is no correspondence for "Less". This boils down to , if I pass "-O1", the Target Machine is created with CodeGenOpt::Default. I am available on IRC @ sgundapa. -----Original Message----- From:

On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 9:05 PM Andrew Kelley <andrew at ziglang.org> wrote: > > On 3/19/20 9:51 AM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev wrote: > > Release Candidate 5 was just tagged as llvmorg-10.0.0-rc5 on the > > release branch at 35627038123. > > > > Source code and docs are available at > > https://prereleases.llvm.org/10.0.0/#rc5 and > >

Here is a problem scenario. I want to enable a backend pass at -O2 or above. if (TM->getOptLevel() >= CodeGenOpt::Default) addPass(&xxxxx); This pass will be run at -O1 too since clang is creating the TargetMachine with CodeGenOpt::Default for -O1. --Sumanth G -----Original Message----- From: mehdi.amini at apple.com [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com] Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017

...t;craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: >> This function is marked virtual but doesn't override anything, doesn't have >> any overrides, and has no in tree callers. Can it be removed? > > Given that it is dead, yes :-) > It used to be called from clang, from lib/CodeGen/BackendUtils.cpp, function CreatePasses. It doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I'm not familiar with that part of the code. +Matthew -Krzysztof -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

Hi LLVMdev, llvm::PassManagerBuilder allows to customize the default pass sequenceby registering passes at specific extension points.However all of theextensions if the -O0 flag is added to the command line; as thecomment says, "If all optimizations are disabled, just run thealways-inline pass."This doesn't play well with _instrumentation_passes which should not be disabled

In PR30403 we've been discussing how to encode -ffreestanding when using LTO. This bit is currently dropped during LTO because its only representation is in the TargetLibraryInfo created by clang ( http://llvm-cs.pcc.me.uk/tools/clang/lib/CodeGen/BackendUtil.cpp#258). The proposal is to introduce a module flag that we set in any translation unit compiled in hosted (i.e. -fno-freestanding)

...the new pass manager. Two questions: 1. Has anybody made an attempt in this direction already? Maybe I am missing a branch out there that has started on this already. From what I can tell, there is no work in-tree in CodeGen that is aware of the new pass manager besides some assembly utilities in BackendUtils.cpp. My initial thoughts in this direction were that there would need to be some new pass manager machinery, for example, things like FunctionToMachineFunctionPassAdaptor that handles what MachineFunctionPass::runOnFunction used to do, along with the associated AnalysisManager plumbing to understan...

Kostya, all, I'm trying to build my project by clang 3.8rc1 with enabled asan (clang itself is address sanitized) and it fails on several files from my project (ISPC, https://github.com/ispc/ispc). I've reproduced this on MacOS and Linux. Please let me know if you need any other info. How to reproduce: 1) Build address sanitized clang 3.8rc1: cd /path-to-working-dir svn co

...rked virtual but doesn't override anything, >>>> doesn't have >>>> any overrides, and has no in tree callers. Can it be removed? >>> >>> Given that it is dead, yes :-) >>> >> >> It used to be called from clang, from lib/CodeGen/BackendUtils.cpp, >> function CreatePasses. It doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I'm >> not familiar with that part of the code. >> +Matthew >> >> -Krzysztof >> > > It is actually part of a patch that we do not intend to upstream. > Unfortunately this...

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Mehdi > Amini via llvm-dev > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 11:10 AM > To: Sumanth Gundapaneni > Cc: LLVM Developers > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] LLVMTargetMachine with optimization level passed > from clang. > > > > On Jan 6, 2017, at 10:56 AM, Sumanth

> Having a look at clang's source, you can find in > "lib/CodeGen/BackendUtil.cpp" the functions where clang builds the > passes to emit code. The optimization passes used are there and you can > simulate them via the "opt" utility, by running each pass one at a time. > LLVM also declares standard module/function passes on >

To continue the discussion I started last year (see the link below) on embedding command-line options in bitcode, I came up with a plan to improve the way the backend changes UnsafeFPMath on a per-function basis. The code in trunk currently resets TargetOptions::UnsafeFPMath at the beginning of SelectionDAGISel::runOnMachineFunction to enable compiling one function with “unsafe-fp-math=true” and

Having a look at clang's source, you can find in "lib/CodeGen/BackendUtil.cpp" the functions where clang builds the passes to emit code. The optimization passes used are there and you can simulate them via the "opt" utility, by running each pass one at a time. LLVM also declares standard module/function passes on include/llvm/Support/StandardPasses.h. Have a look and see

When I'm trying to understand how or why the back end does something I've found the -view-* options to llc to be useful. It's not ideal, because "clang" doesn't take those options, so I have to invoke first "clang" and then "llc", and sometimes that combination gives different final code from invoking just "clang", but usually I can construct

+Eric and Akira (for thoughts on module flags) > On 2016-Sep-16, at 12:47, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> On Sep 16, 2016, at 12:30 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: >> >> In PR30403 we've been discussing how to encode -ffreestanding when using LTO. This bit is currently dropped during LTO because its only

On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 06:20 +0000, Chandler Carruth wrote: > I've landed the patch in r324449. > > Before we merge this into two different Clang release branches and > almost immediately release one of them, I would really like someone > to confirm that this patch works well with the Linux kernel. David, > if you're up for that, it would be great. Alternatively, Guenter

Hi, I do not get your result. Do I miss something? $COMP_ROOT/clang++ --target=arm-arm-eabihf -march=armv8.2a+fp16 arm.cpp -S -o - -O3 .text .syntax unified .eabi_attribute 67, "2.09" .eabi_attribute 6, 14 .eabi_attribute 7, 65 .eabi_attribute 8, 1 .eabi_attribute 9, 2 .fpu crypto-neon-fp-armv8 .eabi_attribute 12, 4

I've landed the patch in r324449. Before we merge this into two different Clang release branches and almost immediately release one of them, I would really like someone to confirm that this patch works well with the Linux kernel. David, if you're up for that, it would be great. Alternatively, Guenter or someone else here can help. On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 5:59 PM Chandler Carruth