search for: llcbetaoption

...gt; Yes please. >> okay then i'll make tailcallopt switch stack adjusting behaviour? the patch for the test suite (when/if it's needed) would be something like: >>>>> --- Makefile.programs (revision 42630) +++ Makefile.programs (working copy) @@ -221,7 +221,8 @@ LLCBETAOPTION := -sched=simple endif ifeq ($(ARCH),x86) -LLCBETAOPTION := -enable-x86-conv-3-addr +LLCBETAOPTION := -tailcallopt +# -enable-x86-conv-3-addr #-regalloc=local -fast #-disable-rematerialization #-disable-fp-elim >>>>> gee i am tired really have to go to bed now. regards...

Yes please. Evan On Oct 5, 2007, at 11:55 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > > On 5 Oct 2007, at 20:47, Evan Cheng wrote: > >> >> On Oct 5, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: >> >>> >>>> We can set a policy of treating fastcc external functions >>>> as c functions. Then there is no chance of introducing ABI >>>>

...vanilla version. LCCBETA was enabled on both. I changed the LCCBETA > option in Makefile.programs in the patched version to include the > tail-call-opt flags so that the optimization code gets exercised. Ok. I'll review the patch soon. Thanks. > > > ifeq ($(ARCH),x86) > LLCBETAOPTION := -regalloc=local -fast -tail-call-opt -tail-call-opt- > align-stack Please remove -regalloc=local -fast. We want to test this patch separately. Can you explain the advantages / disadvantages of -tail- call-opt-align-stack? > > > On 26 Sep 2007, at 02:26, Chris Lattner wrote: &gt...

...ailcallopt switch stack adjusting behaviour? > > > > the patch for the test suite (when/if it's needed) would be > something like: > >>>>> > --- Makefile.programs (revision 42630) > +++ Makefile.programs (working copy) > @@ -221,7 +221,8 @@ > LLCBETAOPTION := -sched=simple > endif > ifeq ($(ARCH),x86) > -LLCBETAOPTION := -enable-x86-conv-3-addr > +LLCBETAOPTION := -tailcallopt > +# -enable-x86-conv-3-addr > #-regalloc=local -fast > #-disable-rematerialization > #-disable-fp-elim > >>>>> > > > gee i...

On 4 Oct 2007, at 00:22, Evan Cheng wrote: >> ifeq ($(ARCH),x86) >> LLCBETAOPTION := -regalloc=local -fast -tail-call-opt -tail-call-opt- >> align-stack > Please remove -regalloc=local -fast. We want to test this patch > separately. just did a test with LLCBETAOPTION := -tail-call-opt -tail-call-opt-align-stack this time only SPASS llc-beta fails (comparing with va...

...and compare > the results. > > Thanks. > > Tony. Hey, Anton. In TEST.llc.Makefile, you can set the type of register allocator that you want: LLC_OPTS = -f -o=/dev/null -stats -time-passes -regalloc=linearscan to compare against your, open "Makefile.program", and set LLCBETAOPTION := -regalloc=your_allocator -fast After that, you just have to type make TEST=nightly report.html on project/llvm-test/ An '*' on the report means that your test failed. The report will give you your compile time, and the running time of the compiled file. Remember to check the test file...

Hi! I developed a register allocator within LLVM and now I need to test its efficiency. Can I do this using llvm-test package? Do llvm tests check all available regalloc options automatically? If not, then what modifications should I do to the test files? It would be great if I could test my algo along with linearscan and compare the results. Thanks. Tony. -- "Nae king! Nae quin! Nae

On Oct 4, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > > On 4 Oct 2007, at 00:22, Evan Cheng wrote: >>> ifeq ($(ARCH),x86) >>> LLCBETAOPTION := -regalloc=local -fast -tail-call-opt -tail-call- >>> opt- >>> align-stack >> Please remove -regalloc=local -fast. We want to test this patch >> separately. > > just did a test with > LLCBETAOPTION := -tail-call-opt -tail-call-opt-align-stack > > this...

...42486). The same number (46) of failing test cases on patched version and vanilla version. LCCBETA was enabled on both. I changed the LCCBETA option in Makefile.programs in the patched version to include the tail-call-opt flags so that the optimization code gets exercised. ifeq ($(ARCH),x86) LLCBETAOPTION := -regalloc=local -fast -tail-call-opt -tail-call-opt- align-stack On 26 Sep 2007, at 02:26, Chris Lattner wrote: > I think enabling this as llcbeta for a few nights makes > sense before turning it on by default. > > -Chris What does turning on by default mean? Does that mean it is...

> > If the test output claims that llc-beta fails, then your register > allocator is producing incorrect code. Ok, I run make TEST=llc report.html with default allocator, not mine. Why LLCBETAOPTION for X86 is local, not linearscan? I've got some tests having * in some columns (for example, in column with register spills count). Does it mean that the test failed? Thanks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llv...

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Evan Cheng wrote: >> the stack adjustment only fastcc was not one of them. Now that fastcc >> can cause tail call optimization i had to change the convention from >> caller pops arguments to callee pops arguments in order to allow tail >> call optimization in a general way. > > Hmmm. Ok. So this is due to X86CallingConv.td changes? Unfortunately

...code with LLC. # use the unoptimized file %.bc not %.llvm.bc # $(PROGRAMS_TO_TEST:%=Output/%.llc.s): \ Output/%.llc.s: Output/%.bc $(LLC) -$(LLC) $(LLCFLAGS) -f $< -o $@ $(PROGRAMS_TO_TEST:%=Output/%.llc-beta.s): \ Output/%.llc-beta.s: Output/%.bc $(LLC) -$(LLC) $(LLCFLAGS) -f $(LLCBETAOPTION) $< -o $@ ---- But that causes many of the following warnings when executiong make. Makefile:43: warning: overriding commands for target `Output/tailcall-struct-by-val.out-jit-beta' Is there a better way of doing what i want? Also should i really add those .ll test cases to the test-suit...

Hi again! I've managed to run the llvm-test with the options Fernando told. What I did was the following: I changed llc regalloc option in TEST.llc.makefile to my allocator. I changed LLCBETAOPTION in makefile.programs file for all architechtures to use my allocator. I run make TEST=nightly report.html and got all tests under LLCBETA failed ('*' symbol). Though I know that my algorithm works. At least I succeeded to pass some files from the LLVM tests (oggenc.c, for example) through l...

Hi guys, I have a pass called "MyPass". And I can run this pass in the LLVM test suite programs and produce a report with the statistics of the execution of this pass. Now, I would like to run the programs in LLVM test suite and generate a report comparing the results obtained without using the pass with the results obtained using the pass. Is there any way to do this? Thank you,

> > ifeq ($(ARCH),x86) > > LLCBETAOPTION := -regalloc=local -fast -tail-call-opt -tail-call-opt- > > align-stack okay i ll do another round of testing with LLCBETAOPTION := -tail-call-opt -tail-call-opt-align-stack > Please remove -regalloc=local -fast. We want to test this patch > separately. Can you explain the advantages /...

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, Tanya M. Lattner wrote: >> BTW, how can I run all tests only on LLC to reduce the amount of time to >> wait until tests are finished, if it's possible? > > In my previous reply to your question, I suggested you look at > TEST.llc.Makefile and TEST.llc.report in the test directory. Modifying > those makefile/report files to use your register allocator

I've developed a pass and would like to see it's effects on the running time of the programs on the llvm test-suite. I think that the test-suite has mechanisms for measuring the running time of it's programs. Is that correct? Looking at the doc and other sources, it seemed that I just needed to modify the nightly test somehow. I tried to modify it to include my pass but I

...load/store sequence only for + // arguments which would be overwritten otherwise Please capitalize "copy", "this", etc. Also please end sentences with proper punctuation. :-) Overall, a very good patch. Please also incorporate the minor changes mentions in other emails (LLCBETAOPTION, -tail-call-opt-align-stack). I think it'll be ready for svn comit after one more iteration. :-) Evan On Oct 2, 2007, at 2:27 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > Hi all, > > I changed the code that checks whether a tail call is really > eligible for optimization so that it perfo...