search for: codegenopt

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 optimization level and CodeGenOpt is...

...mini 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 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...

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 12:37 PM To: Suman...

...Level() 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: jpaquette at apple.com [mailto:jpaquette at apple.com] Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 12:24 PM To: sgundapa at codeaurora.org Cc: LLVM Developers <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] LLVMTargetMac...

The existing CodeGenOpt is not flexible enough for our needs. Our customers want to be able to control the optimization level at a fine grain, so we provide them separate dials for general optimization, fp optimization and memory hierarchy optimization. I would like to replace the existing CodeGenOpt::Level enum with a...

Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: >> class CodeGenOpt { >> ... >> public >> getOptLevel() ...; >> getFPLevel() ...; >> getMemLevel() ...; >> }; >> >> Does this sound reasonable? > > I don't think that this is the right way to go. Higher level > decisions like that should affect your ch...

On Feb 24, 2011, at 8:14 AM, David A. Greene wrote: > Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: > >>> class CodeGenOpt { >>> ... >>> public >>> getOptLevel() ...; >>> getFPLevel() ...; >>> getMemLevel() ...; >>> }; >>> >>> Does this sound reasonable? >> >> I don't think that this is the right way to go. Higher level >>...

...passed > from clang. > > > > On Jan 6, 2017, at 10:56 AM, Sumanth Gundapaneni > <sgundapa at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > > > 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. > > Right, you can’t. Can somebody explain why it's not a bug that -O1 and -O2 are identical? Thanks, --paulr...

On Feb 23, 2011, at 1:49 PM, David Greene wrote: > The existing CodeGenOpt is not flexible enough for our needs. Our > customers want to be able to control the optimization level at a fine > grain, so we provide them separate dials for general optimization, fp > optimization and memory hierarchy optimization. > > I would like to replace the existing CodeG...

...se_error } Yes raise_error and all other extern functions are explicitly added as global symbols. > > CodeGen optimization seems a more likely culprit: JITTargetMachineBuilder and ExecutionEngineBuilder have different defaults for their CodeGen opt-level. JITTargetMachineBuilder defaults to CodeGenOpt::None, and ExecutionEngineBuilder default to CodeGenOpt::Default. > > What happens if you make the following modification to your setup? > > auto JTMB = llvm::orc::JITTargetMachineBuilder::detectHost(); > JTMB->setCodeGenOptLevel(CodeGenOpt::Default); // <-- Explicitly set Code...

...g lookuperror; const Target *moduletarget = TargetRegistry::lookupTarget(MArch, moduletriple, lookuperror); if (!moduletarget) { errs() << lookuperror; return 1; } std::string cpuname = getCPUStr(), ftrlist = getFeaturesStr(); CodeGenOpt::Level OLvl = CodeGenOpt::Default; switch ('2') { default: errs() << "invalid optimization level.\n"; return 1; case ' ': break; case '0': OLvl = CodeGenOpt::None; break; case '1': OLvl = Cod...

...ion of the approach I took in my patch is that command line options that are important to codegen are collected by cl::ParseCommandLineOptions, written to the bitcode as function or module attributes, and read out directly by the optimization passes that need them. cl::opt options are replaced with CodeGenOpt options (subclass of cl::opt), which are needed only to parse the command line and provide the default value when the corresponding options are not in the bitcode. > > I like this approach, since it means the frontend doesn't have to understand > options in order to pass them on to th...

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of nlamee at cs.mcgill.ca > Subject: [LLVMdev] Execution Engine: CodeGenOpt level > How can I dynamically change the code generation optimization level (e.g., > None) of a JIT in other to recompile a function with a new optimization > level (e.g., Default)? We set the optimization level with a PassManagerBuilder, which is initialized for each function compilatio...

...triple, lookuperror); >> >> if (!moduletarget) { >> errs() << lookuperror; >> return 1; >> } >> >> std::string cpuname = getCPUStr(), >> ftrlist = getFeaturesStr(); >> >> CodeGenOpt::Level OLvl = CodeGenOpt::Default; >> switch ('2') { >> default: >> errs() << "invalid optimization level.\n"; >> return 1; >> case ' ': break; >> case '0': OLvl = CodeGen...

...atch is in the right direction. This is how the command line options are parsed and used by the backend passes: 1. Tools such as clang and llc call cl::ParseCommandLineOptions. Any of the options that should be written to the bitcode as function or module attributes (these options are declared as CodeGenOpt, which is a subclass of cl::opt) are saved to Function or ModuleIntAttrs in CodeGenOptions.cpp. 2. setFunctionAttribute is called to move the function and module options saved in step 1 to the bitcode. Also, options stored in TargetOptions are moved to the bitcode too. Pre-existing attributes in th...

...rgetRegistry::lookupTarget(MArch, moduletriple, lookuperror); > > if (!moduletarget) { > errs() << lookuperror; > return 1; > } > > std::string cpuname = getCPUStr(), > ftrlist = getFeaturesStr(); > > CodeGenOpt::Level OLvl = CodeGenOpt::Default; > switch ('2') { > default: > errs() << "invalid optimization level.\n"; > return 1; > case ' ': break; > case '0': OLvl = CodeGenOpt::None; break; >...

Hi, How can I dynamically change the code generation optimization level (e.g., None) of a JIT in other to recompile a function with a new optimization level (e.g., Default)? Thank you. Best regards, Nurudeen.

...et) { >>>> errs() << lookuperror; >>>> return 1; >>>> } >>>> >>>> std::string cpuname = getCPUStr(), >>>> ftrlist = getFeaturesStr(); >>>> >>>> CodeGenOpt::Level OLvl = CodeGenOpt::Default; >>>> switch ('2') { >>>> default: >>>> errs() << "invalid optimization level.\n"; >>>> return 1; >>>> case ' ': break; >>&...

Neat approach, I think. So you set PassManagers's Opt level rather then ExecutionEngine's one? Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer Systems Lab, Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica, Taiwan (R.O.C.) Tel:886-2-2788-3799 #1667 Homepage: http://people.cs.nctu.edu.tw/~chenwj

> From: 陳韋任 [mailto:chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw] > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Execution Engine: CodeGenOpt level > So you set PassManagers's Opt level rather then ExecutionEngine's one? That's correct. I have no idea what difference doing one or the other (or both) makes. - Chuck THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use o...