search for: passe

...-4b pass ./check.t:wcswidth-4c pass ./check.t:debian-117-1 pass ./check.t:debian-117-2 pass ./check.t:debian-117-3 pass ./check.t:debian-117-4 pass ./check.t:case-zsh pass ./check.t:case-braces pass ./check.t:command-shift pass ./check.t:duffs-device Total failed: 5 (4 ignored) (1 unexpected) Total passed: 431 root at genericarmv8:~/anilss/AArch64/mksh_44-1/mksh# On 9 October 2013 16:44, Neil Williams <codehelp at debian.org> wrote: > On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 10:44:27 +0000 (UTC) > Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd.de> wrote: > > > Anil Singhar dixit: > > > > >Man...

mainly question for the intel folks, any chance to rerun the ltp testsuites to see how we are doing these days with all the changes ? thanks :) Wim

On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 10:44:27 +0000 (UTC) Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd.de> wrote: > Anil Singhar dixit: > > >Manual testing as provided within the package has been done with all > >tests passing. This includes the units tests available under > >usr/klibc/tests, usr/utils, usr/dash and usr/gzip. For dash and > >gzip, only sanity testing has been done. > >

flight 2041 xen-unstable real http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/2041/ Regressions :-( tests which did not succeed: test-amd64-amd64-pair 12 guest-migrate/src_host/dst_host fail never pass test-amd64-amd64-pv 8 guest-saverestore fail like 2017 test-amd64-amd64-win 6 guest-saverestore fail REGR. vs. 2017 test-amd64-amd64-xl

On 6/20/16 3:46 PM, Yuxi Chen wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for your reply. > But I still don't know how a transform pass updates a new analysis > pass after it modifies the IR. Can you explain it clearly? I am not > familiar with pass management and invocation. Passes can have methods that allow their internal state to be updated by other passes (the same way that their state can be queried by other passes). For example, the alias analysis passes have methods for querying alias information as well as methods that allow other passes to update the aliasing i...

...s or a transform (optimization) pass? > > It is a transform pass (it can alter the CFG). > >> You cannot reliably use the addRequired() method to force a transform >> pass to run before another pass; there are cases in which the >> PassManager cannot schedule the required passes. You must simply ensure >> that LoopSimplify is executed before your pass. > > I am afraid I do not understand this. What is the purpose of > addRequired() if not ensuring that the pass is run before execution of > my own pass? The addRequired method is designed to tell the P...

The Intel C++ compiler has long had an internal facility to help our development teams track down the source of optimization related bugs by allowing a sort of binary search in which optimization passes and even individual optimizations are selectively disabled in response to front end command line options. As we've been doing development work on LLVM our developers have found that we miss this capability and so we would like to introduce something like this to the LLVM code base. I am awar...

I'd like to write a pass that does both: implements a code transformation *and *saves information that can be accessed by subsequent passes. If such a pass is not an Analysis pass and that therefore subsequent passes are not supposed to use getAnalysis() to extract the information from that pass... what is the right way to do this? Right now I am using getAnalysis to get the information from the non-analysis (transformation) pass....

...25, 2016, at 11:41 AM, Kaylor, Andrew via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The Intel C++ compiler has long had an internal facility to help our development teams track down the source of optimization related bugs by allowing a sort of binary search in which optimization passes and even individual optimizations are selectively disabled in response to front end command line options. As we've been doing development work on LLVM our developers have found that we miss this capability and so we would like to introduce something like this to the LLVM code base. > &gt...

...Andrew via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: The Intel C++ compiler has long had an internal facility to help our development teams track down the source of optimization related bugs by allowing a sort of binary search in which optimization passes and even individual optimizations are selectively disabled in response to front end command line options. As we've been doing development work on LLVM our developers have found that we miss this capability and so we would like to introduce something like this to the LLVM code base. I am awar...

...ain with 64MB, but it got 72 MB FAIL: 08_create_mem128_pos Started domain with 128MB, but it got 136 MB FAIL: 09_create_mem256_pos Started domain with 256MB, but it got 264 MB FAIL: 11_create_concurrent_pos Unknown reason FAIL: 16_create_smallmem_neg Starting a console with 16 MB passed, expected test to fail XFAIL: 02_network_local_ping_pos ping loopback failed for size 32767 65507. ping eth0 failed for size 32767 65507. XFAIL: 05_network_dom0_ping_pos Ping to dom0 failed for size 65507. FAIL: 07_network_dom0_udp_pos UDP hping2 to dom0 failed for size 48 64 512 1440...

...some limitations of the current pass manager infrastructure. After chatting about this with Nick, it seems that there are some pretty systematic weaknesses of the current design and implementation (but not with the fundamental concepts or behavior). Current issues: - Arbitrary limitations on how passes can depend on an analysis: module passes have a gross hack to depend on function pass analyses, and CGSCC passes are just out of luck. - Poor caching of analysis runs across pass manager boundaries. Consider the N iterations on the SCC and the function passes run by the CGSCC pass manager. Even i...

...<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> The Intel C++ compiler has long had an internal facility to help our development teams track down the source of optimization related bugs by allowing a sort of binary search in which optimization passes and even individual optimizations are selectively disabled in response to front end command line options. As we've been doing development work on LLVM our developers have found that we miss this capability and so we would like to introduce something like this to the LLVM code base. >>...

...lvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > The Intel C++ compiler has long had an internal facility to help our development teams track down the source of optimization related bugs by allowing a sort of binary search in which optimization passes and even individual optimizations are selectively disabled in response to front end command line options. As we've been doing development work on LLVM our developers have found that we miss this capability and so we would like to introduce something like this to the LLVM code base. > &gt...

...;llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> When I use llvm, I encounter a problem like "unable to schedule pass >> A required by C" >> I investigated deeper. It's like: >> I have three passes, say A, B, C(all are on function level) >> A would modify IR code. (change instruction order) >> >> For pass B, >> I would use the result of pass A, I use addRequired<B>(), and >> &getAnalysis<B>(), it works. >> >> void getAnalysisUsage(AU...

Let's say I have an analysis pass that's dependent on another analysis pass (getAnalysisUsage does the appropraite things). So Pass Y depends on Pass X. If some transformation pass depends on Pass Y and Pass Y has not been invalidated by another other pass BUT Pass X _has_ been invalidated by some other pass, what happens? I can imagine two likely paths in the current implementation

Looking through some of the remaining test failures under the new pass manager, I've narrowed down one of the failures in GWPAsan(!) to the fact that the new pass manager doesn't properly skip passes like the old pass manager. For example, when a function is marked optnone, or when using https://llvm.org/docs/OptBisect.html. Lots of passes (e.g. SROA) will do the following under the legacy pass manager: bool runOnFunction(Function &F) override { if (skipFunction(F)) return fa...

Could somebody please explain exactly what an "analysis pass" is? I've spent some time trying to understand this and I just don't get it. Right now my understanding is the following: if a pass is an "analysis" pass, the "print" function is called when giving the "-analyze" switch to opt. Is there more to it than that? If I've got it wrong,

On Jul 25, 2008, at 12:58 PM, Marc de Kruijf wrote: > I'd like to write a pass that does both: implements a code > transformation and saves information that can be accessed by > subsequent passes. Ideally, we want to use two separate pass. However, it is quiet possible that your requirement is unique. Would it be possible to provide more info. on what your pass does ? > If such a pass is not an Analysis pass and that therefore subsequent > passes are not supposed to use getAn...

...m-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >>> >>> The Intel C++ compiler has long had an internal facility to help our development teams track down the source of optimization related bugs by allowing a sort of binary search in which optimization passes and even individual optimizations are selectively disabled in response to front end command line options. As we've been doing development work on LLVM our developers have found that we miss this capability and so we would like to introduce something like this to the LLVM code base. >>&g...