search for: preverifier

...> The Linux Foundation > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Nadav Rotem [mailto:nrotem at apple.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:15 AM >> To: Sergei Larin >> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Apparent indeterminism in PreVerifier >> >> Hi Sergei, >> >> "addRuntimeCheck" inserts code that checks that two or more arrays are >> disjoint. I looked at the code and it looks fine. We generate PHIs in >> the order that they appear in a vector. The values are inserted in >> '...

...member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation > -----Original Message----- > From: Nadav Rotem [mailto:nrotem at apple.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:15 AM > To: Sergei Larin > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Apparent indeterminism in PreVerifier > > Hi Sergei, > > "addRuntimeCheck" inserts code that checks that two or more arrays are > disjoint. I looked at the code and it looks fine. We generate PHIs in > the order that they appear in a vector. The values are inserted in > 'canVectorizeMemory', whi...

...by The Linux Foundation > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Sergei Larin > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:31 AM > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: [LLVMdev] Apparent indeterminism in PreVerifier > > > Hello everybody, > > > I have a case of suspected indeterminism and I would like to verify > that it is not a known issue before I dig deep into it. > It seems to happen during PreVerifier pass ("Preliminary module > verification"). The little I unde...

...; >> -----Original Message----- >> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] >> On Behalf Of Sergei Larin >> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:31 AM >> To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >> Subject: [LLVMdev] Apparent indeterminism in PreVerifier >> >> >> Hello everybody, >> >> >> I have a case of suspected indeterminism and I would like to verify >> that it is not a known issue before I dig deep into it. >> It seems to happen during PreVerifier pass ("Preliminary module >> ver...

Hello everybody, I have a case of suspected indeterminism and I would like to verify that it is not a known issue before I dig deep into it. It seems to happen during PreVerifier pass ("Preliminary module verification"). The little I understand/assume about it, a verifier pass is not supposed to change the code (or is it?) but in debug stream I see the following: Common predecessor: *** IR Dump After Loop-Closed SSA Form Pass *** for.body.us68:...

Thanks again. I executed the following command line llc -O3 comb.ll.bc -debug-pass=Arguments and got Pass Arguments: -targetdata -targetpassconfig -no-aa -tbaa -targetlibinfo -basicaa -collector-metadata -machinemoduleinfo -machine-branch-prob -preverify -domtree -verify -loops -loop-simplify -scalar-evolution -loop-simplify -iv-users -loop-reduce -gc-lowering -unreachableblockelim

Hello, I am trying to simplify the CFG of a given code and eliminate the conditionals, even though I will obtain codes that are not semantically equivalent. For example, given a simple loop: for(i=0; i<N; i++){    a[i] = i;     if (i%2==0)       a[i] += 12; } I would keep only the loop, without the if statement: for(i=0; i<N; i++){    a[i] = i; } I can eliminate such conditionals on

Hi, > I executed the following command line > > llc -O3 comb.ll.bc -debug-pass=Arguments > > and got > > Pass Arguments: -targetdata -targetpassconfig -no-aa -tbaa > -targetlibinfo -basicaa -collector-metadata -machinemoduleinfo > -machine-branch-prob -preverify -domtree -verify -loops -loop-simplify > -scalar-evolution -loop-simplify -iv-users -loop-reduce

Hi, I've been thinking about how to keep the line number with the llvm transform/Analysis passes. Basically, I agree with Chris's notes ( http://www.nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/DebugInfoImprovements.txt), and I will follow his way to turn on the line number information when optimization enabled. Here is a detailed proposal: 1. Introduction At the time of this writing, LLVM's

Hi all, I would like to know which optimization passes are performed at -O2 by opt. So I used following command: llvm-as < /dev/null | opt -O2 -std-compile-opts -disable-output -debug-pass=Arguments I've got following output for LLVM opt 2.9: Pass Arguments: -no-aa -tbaa -basicaa -simplifycfg -domtree -scalarrepl -early-cse Pass Arguments: -targetlibinfo -no-aa -tbaa -basicaa

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Joey Gouly <joel.gouly at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Xiu, > > The Verifier pass runs a PreVerifier pass, which does not honour the > action argument, > and will always abort on a broken module, (Line 106, > lib/VMCore/Verifier.cpp) > So the argument can not be used as described as the official document? I just want to make sure of that and probably we can find another way to deal w...

0 down vote favorite <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34049511/how-to-pass-optimization-passes-to-clang#> I'm trying to debug an issue for a new target where a testcase fails with -O1 optimization and passes with -O0 optimization. I got a list of optimization passes being performed when 'clang -O1' is called like this: llvm-as < /dev/null | opt -O1 -disable-output

I was trying the new feature you introduce about printing out the graphs, so I updated my version of llvm/clang/polly synchronizing them to the last version, but I get this error launching clang (also , I recently switched to MacOS X for development): $ clang not_so_simple_loop.c -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang ${PATH_TO_POLLY_LIB}/LLVMPolly.dylib -mllvm -enable-polly-viewer -mllvm -enable-iv-rewrite

John Criswell wrote: > You can use the -debug-pass=Arguments option to opt to print out which > DSA passes it is using. > > -- John T. > The argument list was this: -dsa-local -dsa-stdlib -dsa-bu -dsa-eqtd -poolalloc -preverify -domtree -verify So, the last DSA pass done would appear to have been "-dsa-eqtd". Does this mean pool allocation is using TDeq and not BUeq

Hi All, I know ,I'm bugging around people here :-) ...As said i'm very new too LLVM and try to understand its framework to contribute to same by using my experience.. Here i was trying to understand the analysis and transformation phase in steps using opt utility and i'm stalled here. i.e run the utility on sample by --basicaa switch and output was $ opt -f -S -basicaa -gvn

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:11:01AM +0800, Michael.Kang wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Joey Gouly <joel.gouly at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Xiu, > > The Verifier pass runs a PreVerifier pass, which does not honour the action > argument, > and will always abort on a broken module, (Line 106, lib/VMCore/ > Verifier.cpp) > > > So the argument can not be used as described as the official document? I just > want to make sure  of that and probably we &...

Does anyone have experience to compile Linux kernel in LLVM-2.6? I am working on a C/C++ race detection framework and want to test in large applications. But I do have a lot of errors while compiling Linux kernel 2.6.3 using LLVM-2.6. Actually, I only need to get the .bc bitcode file. Anyboy does similar work before? Which Linux kernel version is used and any skills? Thanks. Lei /****** * Lei

Hi Xiu, The Verifier pass runs a PreVerifier pass, which does not honour the action argument, and will always abort on a broken module, (Line 106, lib/VMCore/Verifier.cpp) Perhaps you should file a bug against this, to allow you to not abort if you so wish. Joey On 11 June 2012 09:41, Guowei Xu <myesis at gmail.com> wrote: > Hell...

On 10/22/2011 08:41 AM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: > I was trying the new feature you introduce about printing out the > graphs, so I updated my version of llvm/clang/polly synchronizing them > to the last version, but I get this error launching clang (also , I > recently switched to MacOS X for development): > > $ clang not_so_simple_loop.c -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang >

Hello everyone: I have a little question about the second argument *action* of verifyFunction. In docs: *Enumerator: * *AbortProcessAction* verifyModule will print to stderr and abort() *PrintMessageAction* verifyModule will print to stderr and return true *ReturnStatusAction* verifyModule will just return true But it still abort when I pass