Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "optlevelo1".
Did you mean:
optlevelo2
2016 May 10
2
Some questions about phase ordering in OPT and LLC
...gt; (I assume your 3 was intended to be mymodulepass1 right?)
(yes)
> So AFAIK no, you should get the order you specified on the command line, i.e.
>
> 1. mymodulepass0
> 2. myfunctionpass on each function
> 3. mymodulepass1
MMMh, from opt.cpp, there's a first call to:
if (OptLevelO1 || OptLevelO2 || OptLevelOs || OptLevelOz || OptLevelO3) {
FPasses->doInitialization();
for (Function &F : *M)
FPasses->run(F);
FPasses->doFinalization();
}
then a few lines later, a call to:
Passes.run(*M);
where Passes is the Module pass Manager and FPasses...
2016 May 09
2
Some questions about phase ordering in OPT and LLC
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 01:07:07PM -0700, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev wrote:
>
> > On May 9, 2016, at 10:43 AM, Ricardo Nobre via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm a PhD student doing phase ordering as part of my PhD topic and I would like to ask some questions about LLVM.
> >
> > Executing the following
2013 Jul 28
0
[LLVMdev] IR Passes and TargetTransformInfo: Straw Man
...if (StandardLinkOpts) {
PassManagerBuilder Builder;
- Builder.populateLTOPassManager(PM, /*Internalize=*/true,
+ Builder.populateIPOPassManager(PM, /*Internalize=*/true,
/*RunInliner=*/true);
+ Builder.populatePostIPOPM(PM);
}
if (OptLevelO1 || OptLevelO2 || OptLevelO3) {
Index: lib/Transforms/IPO/PassManagerBuilder.cpp
===================================================================
--- lib/Transforms/IPO/PassManagerBuilder.cpp (revision 187135)
+++ lib/Transforms/IPO/PassManagerBuilder.cpp (working copy)
@@ -294,10 +294,78 @@
a...
2013 Jul 18
3
[LLVMdev] IR Passes and TargetTransformInfo: Straw Man
Andy and I briefly discussed this the other day, we have not yet got
chance to list a detailed pass order
for the pre- and post- IPO scalar optimizations.
This is wish-list in our mind:
pre-IPO: based on the ordering he propose, get rid of the inlining (or
just inline tiny func), get rid of
all loop xforms...
post-IPO: get rid of inlining, or maybe we still need it, only