search for: sizelevel

...nsforms/IPO/PassManagerBuilder.cpp (the early SimplifyCfg now doesn't sink stores anymore! I can't wait until I can get to use that in rustc!) I find that the loop optimization group does not run after GVN: // Rotate Loop - disable header duplication at -Oz MPM.add(createLoopRotatePass(SizeLevel == 2 ? 0 : -1)); MPM.add(createLICMPass()); // Hoist loop invariants if (EnableSimpleLoopUnswitch) MPM.add(createSimpleLoopUnswitchLegacyPass()); else MPM.add(createLoopUnswitchPass(SizeLevel || OptLevel < 3, DivergentTarget)); MPM.add(createCFGSimplificationPass...

...code snippet to do so but in some cases, my method is also vectorising the code, which doesn't happen when running the same sequence(-S -O1 -reg2mem) through opt. Can someone please help me find what I am missing? Thanks, Akash. * PassManagerBuilder PM; PM.OptLevel = 1; PM.SizeLevel = 0; legacy::FunctionPassManager FPM(&llvm_module); legacy::PassManager MPM; PM.Inliner = createAlwaysInlinerLegacyPass(); PM.DisableUnrollLoops = true; PM.populateFunctionPassManager(FPM); PM.populateModulePassManager(MPM); FPM.doInitialization(); for (auto &F : llvm_module) FPM.run(F);...

...=================================================================== --- tools/opt/opt.cpp (revision 190915) +++ tools/opt/opt.cpp (revision 190916) @@ -462,6 +462,7 @@ DisableLoopUnrolling : OptLevel == 0; Builder.LoopVectorize = OptLevel > 1 && SizeLevel < 2; + Builder.SLPVectorize = true; Builder.populateFunctionPassManager(FPM); Builder.populateModulePassManager(MPM); I think that should not be there? There should at least be a way to turn the SLP optimizer off? It breaks things on our architecture(TCE) which I'm now por...

...utines and redo unrolling again. I have set partial unrolling on + have a huge threshold + allows expensive loop trip counts. Still it didn't unroll by 2. MPM.add(createLoopUnrollPass()); MPM.add(createCFGSimplificationPass()); MPM.add(createLoopSimplifyPass()); MPM.add(createLoopRotatePass(SizeLevel == 2 ? 0 : -1)); MPM.add(createLCSSAPass()); MPM.add(createIndVarSimplifyPass()); // Canonicalize indvars MPM.add(createLoopUnrollPass()); Digging deeper I found, that it fails in UnrollRuntimeLoopRemainder function, where it is unable to calculate the BackEdge taken amount. Can anybod...

I think this has to do with how the pass manager is populated when we give -O3 vs when we give particular pass names. Some passes have multiple createXYZPass() methods that accept arguments too. These methods call non-default pass constructors, which in turn cause the passes to behave in a different manner. eg: Pass *llvm::createLICMPass() { return new LegacyLICMPass(); } Pass

...t; partial unrolling on + have a huge threshold + allows expensive loop trip > counts. Still it didn't unroll by 2. > > MPM.add(createLoopUnrollPass()); > > MPM.add(createCFGSimplificationPass()); > > MPM.add(createLoopSimplifyPass()); > > MPM.add(createLoopRotatePass(SizeLevel == 2 ? 0 : -1)); > > MPM.add(createLCSSAPass()); > > MPM.add(createIndVarSimplifyPass()); // Canonicalize indvars > > MPM.add(createLoopUnrollPass()); > > > Digging deeper I found, that it fails in UnrollRuntimeLoopRemainder > function, where it is unable to cal...

...dule_ref); PassManagerBuilder *PMBuilder = new(std::nothrow) PassManagerBuilder(); if (PMBuilder == nullptr) { *error_message = strdup("memory allocation failure"); return true; } PMBuilder->OptLevel = target_machine->getOptLevel(); PMBuilder->SizeLevel = is_small ? 2 : 0; PMBuilder->DisableTailCalls = is_debug; PMBuilder->DisableUnitAtATime = is_debug; PMBuilder->DisableUnrollLoops = is_debug; PMBuilder->SLPVectorize = !is_debug; PMBuilder->LoopVectorize = !is_debug; PMBuilder->RerollLoops = !is_debug;...

...trip >>> counts. Still it didn't unroll by 2. >>> >>> MPM.add(createLoopUnrollPass()); >>> >>> MPM.add(createCFGSimplificationPass()); >>> >>> MPM.add(createLoopSimplifyPass()); >>> >>> MPM.add(createLoopRotatePass(SizeLevel == 2 ? 0 : -1)); >>> >>> MPM.add(createLCSSAPass()); >>> >>> MPM.add(createIndVarSimplifyPass()); // Canonicalize indvars >>> >>> MPM.add(createLoopUnrollPass()); >>> >>> >>> Digging deeper I found, that it fail...

Hi - attached is a patch to enable building DragonEgg (x86_64) for LLVM3.3 and LLVM3.4. That is, add these changes to the 3.3 release, and it becomes possible to build DragonEgg against a llvm3.4 compiler. Regards, Richard Gorton Cognitive Electronics rcgorton at cog-e.com ---------- -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name:

...n other to recompile a function with a new optimization > level (e.g., Default)? We set the optimization level with a PassManagerBuilder, which is initialized for each function compilation: PassManagerBuilder PMBuilder; ... PMBuilder.OptLevel = conf.value_of(CF_OPTLEVEL); PMBuilder.SizeLevel = conf.is_set(CF_OPTSIZE) ? 1 : 0; PMBuilder.DisableUnitAtATime = !conf.is_set(CF_OPTUNIT); PMBuilder.DisableUnrollLoops = !conf.is_set(CF_UNROLL); PMBuilder.DisableSimplifyLibCalls = !conf.is_set(CF_SIMPLIB); if (Opt != CodeGenOpt::None) { PMBuilder.Inliner = createFunction...

...;   // also called in Polly   MPM.add(createCFGSimplificationPass());     // also called in Polly   MPM.add(createReassociatePass());           // also called in Polly   MPM.add(createLoopRotatePass());            // also called in Polly   MPM.add(createLICMPass());   MPM.add(createLoopUnswitchPass(SizeLevel || OptLevel < 3));    The initial idea is to move Polly immediately after LoopRotatePass, which will maximum the reuse of canonicalization passes and we need only keep one canonicalization pass "createPromoteMemoryToRegisterPass" in Polly. Unfortunately, it would lead to errors as show...

...uot;-Os" and "-Oz" clang also accepts option "-O". By default "-O" has the effect of setting the optimization level to 2. Internally, clang differentiates between optimization level and "size level". Option "-Os" has the effect of setting the SizeLevel to 1, while option "-Oz" has the effect of setting the SizeLevel to 2. Pass Constraints should allow the definition of constraints on both the optimization level and the size level. The effective optimization level described in 3.1 used by the pass managers must take into account bot...

Hi, How can I dynamically change the code generation optimization level (e.g., None) of a JIT in other to recompile a function with a new optimization level (e.g., Default)? Thank you. Best regards, Nurudeen.

...t; MPM.add(createCFGSimplificationPass()); // also called in Polly > MPM.add(createReassociatePass()); // also called in Polly > MPM.add(createLoopRotatePass()); // also called in Polly > MPM.add(createLICMPass()); > MPM.add(createLoopUnswitchPass(SizeLevel || OptLevel < 3)); > > The initial idea is to move Polly immediately after LoopRotatePass, which will maximum the reuse of canonicalization passes and we need only keep one canonicalization pass "createPromoteMemoryToRegisterPass" in Polly. Unfortunately, it would lead to errors...

...icationPass()); // Merge & remove BBs + PM.add(createReassociatePass()); // Reassociate expressions + PM.add(createLoopRotatePass()); // Rotate Loop + PM.add(createLICMPass()); // Hoist loop invariants + PM.add(createLoopUnswitchPass(SizeLevel || OptLevel < 3)); + PM.add(createIndVarSimplifyPass()); // Canonicalize indvars + PM.add(createLoopIdiomPass()); // Recognize idioms like memset. + PM.add(createLoopDeletionPass()); // Delete dead loops + + if (/*LoopVectorize &&*/ OptLeve...

Hi Tobias, At 2013-09-19 22:59:25,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 09/19/2013 04:46 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> Hi Tobias, >> >> >> I am trying to move Polly later. >> >> >> LLVM provides some predefined ExtensionPointTy: >> EP_EarlyAsPossible, >> EP_ModuleOptimizerEarly, >>

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> > To: "Sebastian Pop" <spop at codeaurora.org> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:45:26 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [polly] pass ordering > > On 04/17/2013 05:53 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > > Hi, > > > > polly is run very

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

...-------------===*/ This comment does not match the content of the file. > > +static cl::opt<bool> > +RunVectorization("vectorize", cl::desc("Run vectorization passes")); > + > PassManagerBuilder::PassManagerBuilder() { > OptLevel = 2; > SizeLevel = 0; > @@ -38,6 +43,7 @@ PassManagerBuilder::PassManagerBuilder() { > DisableSimplifyLibCalls = false; > DisableUnitAtATime = false; > DisableUnrollLoops = false; > + Vectorize = RunVectorization; Integrating vectorization like this seems to work for now. Howeve...

...t match the content of the file. > > > > > +static cl::opt<bool> > > +RunVectorization("vectorize", cl::desc("Run vectorization passes")); > > + > > PassManagerBuilder::PassManagerBuilder() { > > OptLevel = 2; > > SizeLevel = 0; > > @@ -38,6 +43,7 @@ PassManagerBuilder::PassManagerBuilder() { > > DisableSimplifyLibCalls = false; > > DisableUnitAtATime = false; > > DisableUnrollLoops = false; > > + Vectorize = RunVectorization; > > Integrating vectorization like...