search for: eecg

I still can't build LLBrowse on my Debian5-i386 machine today, The following is a full build console output. I am using LLVM-2.8 release build, with needed wxWidgets and CMake. Thank you Chuck sideshow.eecg>time cmake ../llbrowse -- The C compiler identification is GNU -- The CXX compiler identification is GNU -- Check for working C compiler: /steffan/a/a0/czhao/bin/bin32/gcc -- Check for working C compiler: /steffan/a/a0/czhao/bin/bin32/gcc -- works -- Detecting C compiler ABI info -- Detecting C...

OK try it now - I checked in a few more fixes. On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote: > I still can't build LLBrowse on my Debian5-i386 machine today, > The following is a full build console output. > I am using LLVM-2.8 release build, with needed wxWidgets and CMake. > > Thank you > > Chuck > > sideshow.eecg>time cmake ../ll...

On 7/27/2010 12:40 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Chuck Zhao<czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote: >> LLVM (2.7 release version) provides 2 implementations for inlining >> function callsites: >> >> - InlineSimple.cpp (-inline): inline simple callsites >> according to its cost analysis >> - InlineAlways.cpp (-always-inlin...

...sense of aesthetics. :) -Dave ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:23:27 -0800 From: Talin <viridia at gmail.com> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] still failed to build the llbrowse on Debian5-32b-llvm2.8 To: Chuck Zhao <czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Message-ID: <AANLkTim8icrL_2ga0Bx1UJi8qqtG1KCZo_bcYnE8+x7R at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" OK try it now - I checked in a few more fixes. On Tue, Feb 22, 2011...

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote: > I don't, and the compiler doesn't neither, that is the problem, unless I do > hacking at compile time. > E.g.: > - put all such function's definitions into file1.c > - force to compile file1.c 1st. > - when compiling file2.c: >  . read file...

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote: > LLVMers, > > I need to intercept all LLVM IR instructions that will write into memory and > start to do analysis on these instructions. ... > Does that mean any LLVM IR that has a valid result field will be able to > store the result into memory? Yes, if...

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote: >  LLVM (2.7 release version) provides 2 implementations for inlining > function callsites: > > - InlineSimple.cpp (-inline):               inline simple callsites > according to its cost analysis > - InlineAlways.cpp (-always-inline):  inline all callsites...

Hi Owen and Vinod, Thanks for sharing the paper! I like the idea a lot. Regarding the paper itself, Vinod, are the consensual branches (e.g., cbranch.ifnone) you mentioned in the paper publicly available in PTX ISA? Owen, could you explain more on the approach of using branch-if-none instructions in your mind? I believe you have lots of great insights, but I don't see how cbranch.ifnone

LLVM (2.7 release version) provides 2 implementations for inlining function callsites: - InlineSimple.cpp (-inline): inline simple callsites according to its cost analysis - InlineAlways.cpp (-always-inline): inline all callsites that are marked with "always_inline" attribute. They are both subclasses of Inline.cpp that assumes the function's definition (body) is

LLVMers, I need to intercept all LLVM IR instructions that will write into memory and start to do analysis on these instructions. In addition to StoreInst, what are all other IRs that will write into memory? E.g. char * ptr = malloc(...); ///... //with use(s) of ptr later The LLVM IR for the above code would be: %0 = tail call noalias i8* @malloc(i32 137) nounwind ///... //

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > LLBrowse - a GUI tool which allows you to inspect the contents of LLVM > modules - now runs on Linux and OS X, and it works with both LLVM 2.8 and > current LLVM head. I've updated the docs to include instructions on checking > out and building the code under several different environments, which you

LLBrowse - a GUI tool which allows you to inspect the contents of LLVM modules - now runs on Linux and OS X, and it works with both LLVM 2.8 and current LLVM head. I've updated the docs to include instructions on checking out and building the code under several different environments, which you can read here: http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llbrowse/trunk/doc/LLBrowse.html (the doc also

...quot;' failed. Aborted I "fixed" this by replacing the LLVMLIBS line in the Makefile with LINK_COMPONENTS according to this tutorial http://llvm.org/docs/MakefileGuide.html#LoadableModules and was able to build/run my pass properly. -shu On Jul 17, 11:48 am, Chuck Zhao <cz... at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote: > While learning to write LLVM passes and following the precise > instructions underhttp://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html, > <http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html> > I got this error when loading the hello pass to run the test program: > >...

...tLICM(int* restrict p) { int i,N=100; for(i=0;i<N;i++){ *p = 1; printf("i: %d\n",i); } printf("data: %d\n", *p); } and run opt with -mem2reg -loop-rotate -licm you can see the store being sunk. Eugene On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote: > I am studying the Transform/Scalar/LICM.cpp pass, and wrote a simple test > program to validate. > > void testLICM(void){ >   int i,N=100; >   int data; >   for(i=0;i<N;i++){ >     data = 1; >     printf("i: %d\n",i); >   } >  ...

While learning to write LLVM passes and following the precise instructions under http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html, <http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html> I got this error when loading the hello pass to run the test program: opt -load ./Release/lib/Hello.so -hello < test/test.bc > /dev/null Error opening './Release/lib/Hello.so': ./Release/lib/Hello.so:

I am studying the Transform/Scalar/LICM.cpp pass, and wrote a simple test program to validate. void testLICM(void){ int i,N=100; int data; for(i=0;i<N;i++){ data = 1; printf("i: %d\n",i); } printf("data: %d\n", data); } I expect the "data=1" will be moved out of loop (either hoist or sink). However, to my surprise, that statement

...;m using because it doesn't seem to be implemented in gem5 otherwise, and would simply produce a warning). Then my guess is that I should use something like: def CACHEADD : I<0x16, FORMAT, (outs), (ins), ASM, [(int_cache_add)]>, PD; where FORMAT comes from http://legup.eecg.utoronto.ca/doxygen/namespacellvm_1_1X86II.html and ASM = ??? and i deleted IIC_SSE_PREFETCH (because I'm not sure what this flag indicates, but I assume it's not needed). I'm not sure what that PD is or if it should stay. Looking for input on this! Clearly it's not correct as-is,...

Hi Chuck, The C backend is being redesigned right now. Try again after the new one is in place. Among the known problems with the current version involve signedness inconsistencies and other things. --Sam Crow From: Chuck Zhao <czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Cc: Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 2:29:22 PM Subject: [LLVMdev] C-Backend bug I think I hit a C-Backend bug, where the IR works fine through the x86 native code generator, but the LLVM IR -> C Backend -> x86 g...

I think the problem is also platform dependent, and I have been trying to come up with the known-good list of build gcc/g++ on various platforms for a long time. E.g., on Debian-32 5.0.5 (Intel): gcc-4.0.4, gcc-4.1.2 are bad, gcc-4.2.4 seems to be fine. on Debian-64 5.0.4 (Intel): the default gcc (4.3.2) seems to be fine. We may want to cover this for a wide range of possible platforms. The

I am working on implementing an algorithm that needs one of the standard Data Flow Analysis as its precondition (VeryBusyExpression to be precise). Thus I take a look into LLVM (2.8) and check their availability. I do expect to see all of the following standard ones: - Reaching Definition (RD) - Live Variable (LV) - Available Expression (AE) - Very Busy Expression (VBE) To my surprise, I