search for: irs

On 8/7/19 6:20 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote: > I basically run "clang > -fexperimental-new-pass-manager -print-after-all ..." > > It's conceivable that something is different in our setup or in clang > (from opt)... I'll see if I can reproduce it outside our setup. Does it depend on machine architecture? I generally use x86... regards,   Fedor. > > Thanks.

I'm have a [PATCH] isDereferenceablePointer: look through gc.relocates and I want to know how to test this patch. So far, I've found one candiate: speculative execution in SimplifyCFG (test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/SpeculativeExec.ll). However, it's somewhat involved to show that SimplifyCFG does kick in for gc.relocate. Is there a better way to directly test it? Signed-off-by:

...> that does NOT generate LLVM IR by its own, it should simply run one of > available module passes and such pass will generate LLVM IR" - why do > you want to do this? You're just going to have to write the graph-IR > transformation sooner or later anyway? Why not do it as the first step > & then do IR level optimizations? (I'm not saying there's no reason to > do this, I'm just wondering what /your/ reasons are) > The answer is simple - In the graph loaded from disk there is a lot more information than in generated IR, so I want to do some transforma...

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote: > On Jun 26, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > So inverting it so that MI contains LLVM IR instead of the other way > > around? Then we'd need a serialization format for MI that happened to > > include a way of serializing LLVM IR within.

On Jun 27, 2013, at 10:12 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > On Jun 26, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > So inverting it so that MI contains LLVM IR instead of the other way > > around? Then we'd need a

The PNaCl project has implemented various IR simplification passes that simplify LLVM IR by lowering complex features to simpler features. We'd like to upstream some of these IR passes to LLVM. We'd like to explore if this acceptable, and if so, how we should go about doing this. The immediate reason is that Emscripten is reusing PNaCl's IR passes for its new "fastcomp"

...5 AM >> To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> Subject: [llvm-dev] Difference when compiling human readable IR vs bitcode >> with clang frontend >> >> We've noticed a difference in the embedded bitcode when compiling human >> readable IR to an object directly vs first compiling IR to BC and then an >> object through clang -cc1. >> If the original IR file contained an "llvm.compiler.used" gv, it will be >> preserved when compiling IR -> BC -> Obj. >> When compiling IR -> Obj directly, it will be removed. >> >&...

...ibrary(MASS) library(stats) data(iris3) ir<-rbind(iris3[,,1],iris3[,,2],iris3[,,3]) ir.species<-factor(c(rep("s",50),rep("c",50),rep("v",50))) ir.lda<-lda(log(ir),ir.species) ir.ld<-predict(ir.lda,dimen=2)$x eqscplot(ir.ld, type="n", xlab = "First linear discriminant", ylab = "second linear discriminant") text(ir.ld, labels= as.character(ir.species[-143]), col =3 +codes(ir.species),cex =0.8) ====================================== eqscplot does not plot anything and it gives me an error saying codes is defunct. Have I mi...

Hi, I would like your opinions on the contract we have between the LLVM IR and the backends. * Context * Right now, the backends are supposed to be able to perform instruction selection on any valid LLVM IR. Although this is *not* something I want to change for GlobalISel, I thought I brought that up on the mailing list to discuss the implications. In particular, in the past, some people

Hi all, There is some uncertainty in the concept of LLVM IR, which results in unexpected IR in some cases. The problem description is here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40567#943747. In short, llvm-link tries to merge an opaque type with its definition, using type name for that. Clang uses the same name for all specializations of a class template, so in this case llvm-link chooses arbitrary type as

Hi all, I would like to propose a text-based, human readable format that will be used to serialize the machine level IR. The major goal of this format is to allow LLVM to save the machine level IR after any code generation pass and then to load it again and continue running passes on the machine level IR. The primary use case of this format is to enable easier testing process for the code

We've noticed a difference in the embedded bitcode when compiling human readable IR to an object directly vs first compiling IR to BC and then an object through clang -cc1. If the original IR file contained an "llvm.compiler.used" gv, it will be preserved when compiling IR -> BC -> Obj. When compiling IR -> Obj directly, it will be removed. This difference does not exist for the "llvm....

Hi all, I am going to build a Pass/es that verify OpenMP code. When we compile an OpenMP program we give the option “-fopenmp” to clang. In this way the LLVM IR code obtained will reflect also the “#pragma” keywords in the code, let’s call it "OpenMP LLVM IR". In my Pass/es before obtaining the OpenMP LLVM IR, I need to do some operation in the LLVM IR, that is the IR code obtained

...else you > want to do you'll have to build separately/in front of LLVM. Once your > other system generates IR, then you can pass it to LLVM. > > > > > Could you please tell me what will be the best (most flexible and easy) > > solution to do this, keeping in mind the first question? > > > > I have an idea of solution (which does not work completely) - the idea > is to > > create an compiler which will initialize the base module and will do > nothing > > at all. Then I can use the opt tool with my module passes, which will > load, &gt...

...to write a compiler that does NOT generate LLVM IR by its own, it should simply run one of available module passes and such pass will generate LLVM IR" - why do you want to do this? You're just going to have to write the graph-IR transformation sooner or later anyway? Why not do it as the first step & then do IR level optimizations? (I'm not saying there's no reason to do this, I'm just wondering what /your/ reasons are) - David > > > 2012/11/17 David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> >> >> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Wojciech Daniło >&g...

...es NOT generate LLVM IR by its own, it should simply run one of >> available module passes and such pass will generate LLVM IR" - why do >> you want to do this? You're just going to have to write the graph-IR >> transformation sooner or later anyway? Why not do it as the first step >> & then do IR level optimizations? (I'm not saying there's no reason to >> do this, I'm just wondering what /your/ reasons are) >> > The answer is simple - In the graph loaded from disk there is a lot more > information than in generated IR, so I want...

Hello, When I try to create execution engine I do get "*Interpreter has not been linked in.*" error and EngineBuilder returns NULL. Here is the line I use to create execution engine: auto executionEngine = llvm::EngineBuilder(std::move(m_module)).setErrorStr(&error).create(); Here are all headers I have included: #include "llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h" #include

...ed2305 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thank You... >> My issue is i m observing malloc instructions in LLVM IR.. When I >> compiled certain benchmark codes i.e graphbig. They consume memory but when >> I see IR there is no malloc.. >> > > This is confusing, you first wrote that you are "observing malloc > instructions in LLVM IR" but then you wrote "when I see IR there is no > malloc". > > > >> By observing in detail i came to know following line which exist in >> header file new_allocator.h is taking memory; >...

...> that does NOT generate LLVM IR by its own, it should simply run one of > available module passes and such pass will generate LLVM IR" - why do > you want to do this? You're just going to have to write the graph-IR > transformation sooner or later anyway? Why not do it as the first step > & then do IR level optimizations? (I'm not saying there's no reason to > do this, I'm just wondering what /your/ reasons are) > The answer is simple - In the graph loaded from disk there is a lot more information than in generated IR, so I want to do some transforma...

...s (e.g. cygwin files or the Linux files) in main program's IR byte code. 2. In order to insert code, I can try following two ways : (i) I have observed that these IR bytecode files are just like a text file and they have fixed format. Using file operations, we can modify IR byte code of the first file by inserting the IR byte code from other files. (ii) Second approach is to use LLC Tool to generate c++ code of second IR byte code. Then use generated c++ code and insert into the first IR byte code. Write the optimizer pass on first IR byte code and add the instructions from generated c...