search for: createstandardmodulepass

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:53 AM, George Giorgidze <giorgidze at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Erick, > > Can you make the following functions available in llvm-c. > > createStandardFunctionPasses > createStandardModulePasses > createStandardLTOPasses > > Thanks in advance, George This is a little tricky, so I need some advice from the community. First off, I'm not sure where it's appropriate to put these. For llvm-c, most files live in a header named after the library that includes the functions, an...

...much finished exposing all I wanted to llvm-c and the > ocaml bindings for the soon to be released 2.7. Does anyone need any > other functions exposed before the code freeze on the 7th? > Hi Erick, Can you make the following functions available in llvm-c. createStandardFunctionPasses createStandardModulePasses createStandardLTOPasses Thanks in advance, George

The opt tool uses two helpers to run passes: createStandardFunctionPasses and createStandardModulePasses. How were the passes to be instantiated by each function chosen? There are some FunctionPasses instantiated by createStandardModulePasses which is a bit counterintuitive. I see that all passes added by the user on the command line are added to "Passes" in opt, meaning they're add...

I've pretty much finished exposing all I wanted to llvm-c and the ocaml bindings for the soon to be released 2.7. Does anyone need any other functions exposed before the code freeze on the 7th?

...ude/llvm/Transforms/IPO/PassManagerBuilder.h" by looking at how the Clang usage had changed, where it previously had used StandardPasses.h and its contents. So, for the release notes, it would be nice to mention this change and perhaps give a couple examples how to convert from calls to "createStandardModulePasses()" and "createStandardFunctionPasses()" to the new interface. Thanks for everyone's hard work on 3.0 - I can't wait to get our project building cleanly with rc2. -Kevin

...e addition of the optimization passes. - The optimization passes are being added as follows: llvm::OwningPtr<llvm::PassManager> passManager( new llvm::PassManager ); if ( optimize ) { llvm::createStandardFunctionPasses( passManager.get(), 2 ); llvm::createStandardModulePasses( passManager.get(), 2, false, true, true, true, false, llvm::createFunctionInliningPass() ); llvm::createStandardLTOPasses( passManager.get(), true, true, false ); } passManager->run( *module ); - If I *don't* comment out the optimization passes (inside the if sta...

...ation passes. > - The optimization passes are being added as follows: >        llvm::OwningPtr<llvm::PassManager> passManager( new llvm::PassManager ); >        if ( optimize ) >        { >          llvm::createStandardFunctionPasses( passManager.get(), 2 ); >          llvm::createStandardModulePasses( passManager.get(), 2, false, true, true, true, false, llvm::createFunctionInliningPass() ); >          llvm::createStandardLTOPasses( passManager.get(), true, true, false ); >        } >        passManager->run( *module ); > - If I *don't* comment out the optimization passes (...

I run large piece of code in JIT and it runs only marginallty faster with optimization levels 1,2,3. I think differences are within the margin or error. level user time 0 17339ms 1 16913ms 2 16891ms 3 16898ms Level is set with builder->setOptLevel(olev); Compilation time is excluded by taking the only top-level function address before the run

I have some LLVM IR after the optimization passes defined in createStandardModulePasses with the optimization level set to 3. It contains what appears to me to be an easily optimizable branch statement. In particular, note in the code below that at the end of the "loop" BasicBlock that there is a conditional branch where in the false case, it branches to the label "%...

The thread here should help. http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-May/031624.html On May 28, 2010, at 6:35 AMPDT, Curtis Faith wrote: > I have some LLVM IR after the optimization passes defined in createStandardModulePasses with the optimization level set to 3. It contains what appears to me to be an easily optimizable branch statement. > > In particular, note in the code below that at the end of the "loop" BasicBlock that there is a conditional branch where in the false case, it branches to the lab...

Hello, I am currently working on a project that requires me to do some analysis on code as it compiles. I would like to print out all type definitions for a kernel while it is compiling. I can successfully compile a kernel using llvm-gcc. I have been looking into writing a pass to do this but do not know how to run a pass at compile time. Is there any tool already available to do this?

Hello all, My app is using LLVM JIT as a runtime engine for image analysis (similar to opencl). I'm placing values into a struct to pass byref to a series of functions. After running the createStandardModulePasses(...) set of optimizations, the function calls are all inlined but the struct store/load pairs haven't been optimized away. I've attached the code below. What I'd like to see is the store / load combos to be opt to registers, and the stores with no associated loads to be removed so fur...

Hello all, My app is using LLVM JIT as a runtime engine for image analysis (similar to opencl). I'm placing values into a struct to pass byref to a series of functions. After running the createStandardModulePasses(...) set of optimizations, the function calls are all inlined but the struct store/load pairs haven't been optimized away. I've attached the code below. What I'd like to see is the store / load combos to be opt to registers, and the stores with no associated loads to be removed so fur...