search for: sangitachowdhari

Do you pull clang under llvm/tools and compile it as well? In theory, if `opt` recognize the option, so does `clang -mllvm`. 2018-01-12 8:47 GMT+08:00 sangeeta chowdhary <sangitachowdhary at gmail.com>: > Hello, > > I have tried giving this option like this > > clang -c -emit-llvm -mllvm -rdetector hello.c -c -o hello.bc > but I am getting error " Unknown command

Hello, I have followed steps given in - https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29910051/integrating-llvm-passes/48142693#48142693 <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29910051/integrating-llvm-passes/48142693#48142693>, to integrate my pass with pass manager and run it with clang. I am able to run my pass with opt - opt -mypass but when I try to run it with clang, I always get an error -

On 14 Jan 2018, at 00:14, sangeeta chowdhary <sangitachowdhary at gmail.com> wrote: > > I have taken SimplePass and added in Transform directory, “libLLVMSimplePass.a” is built but I can not see this pass in opt —help. I don’t even see the name of pass while registering it in the example. The SimplePass example is intended to be built out of tree, so I’ve no idea what happens if you

I have taken SimplePass and added in Transform directory, “libLLVMSimplePass.a” is built but I can not see this pass in opt —help. I don’t even see the name of pass while registering it in the example. > On Jan 13, 2018, at 7:35 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > On 13 Jan 2018, at 03:45, Craig Topper via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

Clang doesn’t support adding passes from the command line the way opt does. Opt has special parsing in opt.cpp for this that clang doesn’t have. I’m not sure what the correct way to do this is. I think your plugin needs to do something to tell clang/llvm when to run the pass. I’ll try to look later when I’m back at a computer. On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 7:00 PM 陳韋任 via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

(though, usual caveat: you /usually/ shouldn't be doing that - instead relying only on whatever semantics the IR actually carries, rather than implying extra semantics based on the demangled name) On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:48 PM Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I have not tried it but maybe > > `std::string llvm::demangle(const

This is of course not homework. I am trying to understand how fast math optimizations work in llvm. When I compared IR for both the programs, the only thing I have noticed is that fdiv and fmul are replaced with fdiv fast and fmul fast. Not sure what happens in fdiv fast and fmul fast. I feel that its because d/max is really small number and fast-math does not care about small numbers and consider