search for: codegenopts

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 as below O0 - none O1 - less O2 - default O3 - ag...

...i 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 between optimization >> level and CodeGenOpt is as below >...

...>> <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 between optimization level and CodeGenOpt is as belo...

...a 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 between optimization level and CodeGenOpt is as below >>> O...

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 more general CodeGenOpt class that can track different sets of optimization

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 choice of passes to

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

...vm.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 between optimizati...

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 CodeGenOpt::Level enum with

Hi Lang, On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 22:03, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > When you say your code is not getting optimized, do you mean that IR optimizations are not being applied, or that codegen optimizations are not being applied? > > What do you see if you dump the modules before/after running the pass manager on them, like this: > > dbgs() << "Before

Sorry in advance for the stupid question, i still don’t understand some concepts like passes. I took a piece of code from llc, and I used it to write a function that creates an object (or assembly) file from an IR module. It compiles without any problems. But program crashes when it reaches add() method of the pass manager. Can you help me figuring out what’s the problem please? here is my

> On Nov 14, 2014, at 2:44 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > +chrisb > >> On 2014-Nov-13, at 16:33, Akira Hatanaka <ahatanak at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'm working on fixing PR21471, which is about embedding codegen command line options into the bitcode as function or module-level attributes so that they don't get

> 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

The stack trace: llvm::PMTopLevelManager::addImmutablePass(llvm::ImmutablePass*) llvm::PMTopLevelManager::schedulePass(llvm::Pass*) moduleToObjectFile(llvm::Module*,std::string&,llvm::LLVMContext&) Sometimes it doesn't crash because TargetRegistry::lookupTarget() returns an error which says it doesn't support the current target > On Mar 24, 2016, at 1:14 AM, Mehdi Amini

Updated patch is attached. Note this is just a work-in-progress patch and I plan to address the feedback comments later if this patch 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

Assuming you are talking about this line: passmanager.add(tliwp); I don't see anything obviously wrong. Are you hitting an assertion or a pure crash? (if LLVM not built with assertions, please rebuild). What does your debugger gives you as a stracktrace? -- Mehdi > On Mar 23, 2016, at 3:44 PM, Lorenzo Laneve via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Sorry in

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.

Sorry, that's a pure crash I think, assertions are not triggered. Xcode doesn’t map those 2 functions to line numbers because they’re in precompiled libraries On Mar 24, 2016, at 1:44 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Mar 23, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Lorenzo Laneve <lore97drk at icloud.com <mailto:lore97drk at

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