search for: llvms

Hello. I'm using these commands to compile the code below in order to collect edge/blocks profiling: clang -emit-llvm -c sort.c -o sort.bc opt -insert-edge-profiling sort.bc -o sort_prof.bc clang sort_prof.bc -lprofile_rt -L/llvms/lib -o sort_prof then I run the program and display the profiling information using llvm-prof sort_prof.bc, and the result is: ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------=== Function execution frequencies: ## Frequency 1. 4.3e+05/708539 main 2. 2.8e+05/708...

...n 31/01/13 00:23, César wrote: > Hello. > > I'm using these commands to compile the code below in order to collect > edge/blocks profiling: > > clang -emit-llvm -c sort.c -o sort.bc > opt -insert-edge-profiling sort.bc -o sort_prof.bc > clang sort_prof.bc -lprofile_rt -L/llvms/lib -o sort_prof > > then I run the program and display the profiling information using You can also skip the compilation step and run directly through the interpreter lli -load /llvms/lib/libprofile_rt.so sort_prof.bc > llvm-prof sort_prof.bc, and the result is: > try running llvm...

...or these since they truly are exceptional events. Personally I also do not like asserts either, as that is indicating you are expecting something bad to happen; such a circumstance should have code to handle it, or throw an exception. Which makes me curious, if I submitted a patch that got rid of llvms use of abort()s all over the place, and replaces them with exceptions (the program dies either way if it is unhandled, but with exceptions you at least get a chance to handle it and recover), what is the chance it would be accepted, especially since I see no usage of exceptions at all (even if it p...

Hi, > Which makes me curious, if I submitted a patch that got rid of llvms > use of abort()s all over the place, and replaces them with exceptions > (the program dies either way if it is unhandled, but with exceptions > you at least get a chance to handle it and recover), since LLVM may well be left in an inconsistent state internally if an exception is thrown,...

Hi, I've been wondering why LLVMs GEP instructions are based on types, rather than encoding the raw address calculation as a base pointer plus some scaled offsets (still in the form of a GEP, to retain provenance). The type information does not seem particularly useful (shouldn't be used as an optimization base, because struct...

...igure and then ./make it. It was installed in /usr/local as i expected. However, when i tried to run llvm-config-2.8, for example --version, it was not ran. Then, I used apt-get to installed the llvm-2.8-dev to have llvm-config. Did i do anything wrong? Also i do not know if these two installed llvms are linked together! Thank you, Reza Quoting Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu>: > Could you give us more information? If your package manager does not > have 2.8 (I would hope it doesn't! that version is very old!), I would > recommend downloading 2.8 from http://llvm.org/rel...

...point of LLVM being built with tooling support out of the box was a major thing, however, I've not read anything about any tools which are actually taking advantage of the foundation LLVM provides. I'm not a Mac user, but I'd assume XCode would be a prime candidate - does/will XCode use LLVMs foundation to create a better IDE experience? Also, anyone know of similar efforts for Linux-based IDEs? Cheers, Granville -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090616/cd6f8b40/attachment.html>

...rg/. One of the goal is to have different versions co-installable. For that, I am renaming the binaries and libraries. Now, as we are not using the minor version (the Y in X.Y.Z), there isn't much point in calling our tools foo-7.0 as we won't create a 7.1. See http://blog.llvm.org/2016/12/llvms-new-versioning-scheme.html for more information on this. Proposition: Remove the .0 everywhere in lib name. I have been publishing this change on top of the Debian/Ubuntu packages for a couple of months now (basically since trunk became 7). Packages are now called clang-7 instead of clang-6.0 I b...

On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi, > >> Which makes me curious, if I submitted a patch that got rid of llvms >> use of abort()s all over the place, and replaces them with exceptions >> (the program dies either way if it is unhandled, but with exceptions >> you at least get a chance to handle it and recover), > > since LLVM may well be left in an inconsistent state internally if &gt...

Hi, I am writing a small tool to gather some static statistics on machine code using LLVMs MachineInstr, etc., infrastructure. My current goal is to count the number of bytes of integer and floating point data being processed per iteration of a loop. Now I've ran into the problem that I can't find any obvious way to get the actual type of a MachineOperand. After some digging I n...

...oned in the notes. What's next? Once the branch is in good shape, hopefully within a few days, a first release candidate will be made available for testing. The schedule for the release is under "Upcoming Releases" on http://llvm.org. Thanks, Hans [1] http://blog.llvm.org/2016/12/llvms-new-versioning-scheme.html

...ort for > explicit masking in the form of gather/scatter/etc...  Until someone > has taken the effort to make masking in this context *actually work > well*, I'm unconvinced that we should greatly expand the usage in the IR. What do you mean by "make masking *work well*"? LLVMs vectorization support is stuck in ~2007 (SSE, ..) with patched-in intrinsics to support masked load/store and gather/scatter on AVX2. I think this is a chicken-and-egg problem: LLVMs LoopVectorizer is rather limited and is used to argue that better IR support for predication was not necessary....

...; > out of the box was a major thing, however, I've not read anything about > any > > tools which are actually taking advantage of the foundation LLVM > provides. > > I'm not a Mac user, but I'd assume XCode would be a prime candidate - > > does/will XCode use LLVMs foundation to create a better IDE experience? > > Also, anyone know of similar efforts for Linux-based IDEs? > > Hi Granville, > > Clang itself takes advantage of the LLVM libraries > (http://clang.llvm.org/). The static analyzer takes advantage of the > clang libraries (sam...

...questions because we (guys I work with) see loops where there's a little register juggling that seems unnecessary. Is there a paper that describes what y'all do? Thanks, Preston On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com> wrote: > I would not describe LLVMs register allocator as linear scan, it's closer > to graph coloring than linear scan IMO (though doesn't really matcher > either approach). > > RegAllocGreedy assigns the registers in an order based on the priority > value computed in enqueu() we are not just scanning from top...

> >> Which makes me curious, if I submitted a patch that got rid of llvms > >> use of abort()s all over the place, and replaces them with exceptions > >> (the program dies either way if it is unhandled, but with exceptions > >> you at least get a chance to handle it and recover), > > > > since LLVM may well be left in an inconsisten...

.../make it. It was installed in /usr/local > as i expected. However, when i tried to run llvm-config-2.8, for > example --version, it was not ran. Then, I used apt-get to installed > the llvm-2.8-dev to have llvm-config. Did i do anything wrong? Also i > do not know if these two installed llvms are linked together! What's the output of this commands: which perl which llvm-config which llvm-as /usr/local/bin/llvm-config --version /usr/bin/llvm-config --version ?

...hink it's a more useful discussion format for people knowledgeable about LLVM. Dumping a huge LangRef-like reference manual on people is less discussion-friendly :-) As I've mentioned, in reality (= code), the approach is whitelisting so we shouldn't miss things that get added in future LLVMs. Eli -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130618/81b1ce9b/attachment.html>

...o have different versions co-installable. For that, > I am renaming the binaries and libraries. > > Now, as we are not using the minor version (the Y in X.Y.Z), there isn't > much point in calling our tools foo-7.0 as we won't create a 7.1. > See http://blog.llvm.org/2016/12/llvms-new-versioning-scheme.html for > more information on this. > > Proposition: Remove the .0 everywhere in lib name. In light of the new versioning scheme, this looks very reasonable to me. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Ty...

Why have we ended up using linear-scan register allocation by default (instead of, e.g., coloring)? Thanks, Preston -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180910/2f468e56/attachment.html>

...abort()ing on > some bad passed in code There are better solutions to that: 1) ensure you don't ever pass the llvm backend invalid code, and 2) use the llvm IR verifier to reject code before sending it to the backend. > Which makes me curious, if I submitted a patch that got rid of llvms > use of abort()s all over the place, and replaces them with exceptions > what is the > chance it would be accepted, There is no chance, we worked hard to eliminate exceptions and are aiming to eliminate the last couple remnants of RTTI. Sending invalid code into the backend is viola...