search for: jahanian

On Sep 13, 2010, at 11:43 AM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote: > On Sep 13, 2010, at 11:11 AM, John McCall wrote: >> On Sep 13, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote: >>> >> We do emit phis when the semantics aren't defined in terms of memory, >> e.g. with expressions that have multiple paths of control flow (like...

On Sep 13, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote: > On Sep 13, 2010, at 10:46 AM, John McCall wrote: >> On Sep 13, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >>>> I compiled with "llvm-gcc -emit-llvm test.c -S -o test.ll". Attached to this >>>> message are the source and the resulting ll output. >&gt...

On Jul 22, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote: > >> >> Building llvm is failing for me today. I am using clang++ to build >> (which has not changed). >> >> llvm[2]: Compiling EDMain.cpp for Debug+Asserts build (PIC) >> EDMain.cpp:267:39: error: C-style cast from '::EDTokenVisitor_t' (aka &gt...

On Sep 13, 2010, at 11:11 AM, John McCall wrote: > On Sep 13, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote: >> > We do emit phis when the semantics aren't defined in terms of memory, > e.g. with expressions that have multiple paths of control flow (like > the > conditional operator or null-checked derived-to-base conversions). But at least for conditional operator, there a...

Building llvm is failing for me today. I am using clang++ to build (which has not changed). llvm[2]: Compiling EDMain.cpp for Debug+Asserts build (PIC) EDMain.cpp:267:39: error: C-style cast from '::EDTokenVisitor_t' (aka 'int (^)(EDTokenRef)') to 'llvm::EDTokenVisitor_t' (aka 'int (^) (llvm::EDToken *)') is not allowed return

On Jul 22, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote: > > Building llvm is failing for me today. I am using clang++ to build > (which has not changed). > > llvm[2]: Compiling EDMain.cpp for Debug+Asserts build (PIC) > EDMain.cpp:267:39: error: C-style cast from '::EDTokenVisitor_t' (aka > 'int (^)(EDToken...

On May 6, 2011, at 4:57 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > On May 6, 2011, at 1:29 AM, Jay Foad wrote: > >> This seems wrong -- if a test fails, it shouldn't stop the whole >> "make", it should just get logged as a failure and continue. > > That's a frustrating aspect of the test-suite Makefiles. I don't know how to work around it without removing the test

Fariborz, On May 6, 2011, at 5:07 PM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote: > > On May 6, 2011, at 4:57 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > >> On May 6, 2011, at 1:29 AM, Jay Foad wrote: >> >>> This seems wrong -- if a test fails, it shouldn't stop the whole >>> "make", it should just get logged as a failure and continu...

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:59 PM, jahanian <fjahanian at apple.com> wrote: > Wouldn’t implementing this proposal be a red herring? By this I mean, it is > possible that > throughout the optimization phases, there is an implied assumption that all > functions > are similarly optimized. An example would be under certain o...

Dropping opt level should not lead to ABI changes. Otherwise you won't be able to mix-match O2 and O0 objects either. David On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:59 AM, jahanian <fjahanian at apple.com> wrote: > Wouldn’t implementing this proposal be a red herring? By this I mean, it is > possible that > throughout the optimization phases, there is an implied assumption that all > functions > are similarly optimized. An example would be under certain o...

...ote: > Dropping opt level should not lead to ABI changes. Otherwise you won't > be able to mix-match O2 and O0 objects either. I was referring to “static functions”. Not that it happens, but something to consider. - Fariborz > > David > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:59 AM, jahanian <fjahanian at apple.com> wrote: >> Wouldn’t implementing this proposal be a red herring? By this I mean, it is >> possible that >> throughout the optimization phases, there is an implied assumption that all >> functions >> are similarly optimized. An example woul...

Wouldn’t implementing this proposal be a red herring? By this I mean, it is possible that throughout the optimization phases, there is an implied assumption that all functions are similarly optimized. An example would be under certain optimization flag, compiler changes calling convention of static functions. - Fariborz On Jun 17, 2013, at 8:58 AM, Andrea_DiBiagio at sn.scee.net wrote: >

Hi Reza, -O4 is the highest level of LLVM optimization that I know of. But, I don't know if it has been tried on Spec2006. IIRC, Dan Gohman has run Spec. tests with LLVM, so he can provide more info. - fariborz On Jul 19, 2010, at 6:06 PM, Reza Yazdani wrote: > Hi, > > What are the best options to compile Spec2006 with LLVM compilers to > get the best performance numbers

On Sep 13, 2010, at 10:46 AM, John McCall wrote: > On Sep 13, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >>> I compiled with "llvm-gcc -emit-llvm test.c -S -o test.ll". >>> Attached to this >>> message are the source and the resulting ll output. >> >> compile with optimization. The llvm-gcc front-end "cheats" and >> stores/loads

Hello, I have recently been working on scheduling for register pressure and ran into the issue of alias analysis when trying to integrate it with LLVM. Looking at the code it seems that the pre register allocation scheduling doesn't use alias analysis information. On the contrary, post-RA uses it. I'm wondering if there is a good reason for this fact. Indeed, it seems to me that alias

On Sep 13, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >> I compiled with "llvm-gcc -emit-llvm test.c -S -o test.ll". Attached to this >> message are the source and the resulting ll output. > > compile with optimization. The llvm-gcc front-end "cheats" and stores/loads all > values to/from memory, avoiding the need to construct phi nodes; instead it lets >

Hi, What are the best options to compile Spec2006 with LLVM compilers to get the best performance numbers on x86? Has anybody compared LLVM Spec2006 numbers with GCC 4.5 base? reza -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100719/40cf38a5/attachment.html>

...y, May 26, 2014, and five concurrent tutorials in the afternoon of Thursday, May 29. Eight posters and two demos are selected for the poster session in the evening of Tuesday, May 27, and ten papers are accepted for the Doctoral Symposium program on Wednesday, May 28. The IEEE SCALE Dr. Farnam Jahanian, the National Science Foundation Assistant Director for the Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE), to deliver the opening keynote. The keynote speaker of the second day, Prof. Ion Stoica, is a professor of Computer Science at University of California at Berkeley, and is known...

...y, May 26, 2014, and five concurrent tutorials in the afternoon of Thursday, May 29. Eight posters and two demos are selected for the poster session in the evening of Tuesday, May 27, and ten papers are accepted for the Doctoral Symposium program on Wednesday, May 28. The IEEE SCALE Dr. Farnam Jahanian, the National Science Foundation Assistant Director for the Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE), to deliver the opening keynote. The keynote speaker of the second day, Prof. Ion Stoica, is a professor of Computer Science at University of California at Berkeley, and is known...

Hi, I previously made a proposal for adding a pragma for per-function optimization level control due to a number of requests from our customers (See http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.clang.devel/28958 for the previous discussion), however the discussion was inconclusive. Some of my colleagues recently had the opportunity to discuss the proposal with a number of people at and