search for: targetopts

Hi, Our DSL LLVM IR emitted code (optimized with -O3 kind of IR ==> IR passes) runs slower when executed with the LLVM 3.3 JIT, compared to what we had with LLVM 3.1. What could be the reason? I tried to play with TargetOptions without any success… Here is the kind of code we use to allocate the JIT: EngineBuilder builder(fResult->fModule);

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Stéphane Letz <letz at grame.fr> wrote: > Hi, > > Our DSL LLVM IR emitted code (optimized with -O3 kind of IR ==> IR passes) runs slower when executed with the LLVM 3.3 JIT, compared to what we had with LLVM 3.1. What could be the reason? > > I tried to play with TargetOptions without any success… > > Here is the kind of code we use to

Hi all, we have several features in Mips that are dependent on target abi. A recent commit(r224492) introduced a new -target-abi option to TargetOptions struct that provides access to abi string. This info is stored in MCSubtarget class(ARMSubratget in this case) and distributed to other libraries. Unfortunately, for Mips we need this info in other classes that don't have access to MCSubtarget

Hi Eric, as I was working on the same issues that are covered in your patch I also made a change in clang driver to pass this option to the assembler. Could you please review it and tell me your opinion? http://reviews.llvm.org/D6091 Thanks Vladimir ________________________________ From: Daniel Sanders Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 8:59 PM To: Eric Christopher; Vladimir Medic; llvmdev at

Hi Eric, The main thing we need to fix is that the selection between ELF32/ELF64 needs to depend on the ABI being N64 and not on whether we used a mips-linux-gnu triple versus a mips64-linux-gnu triple. So 'clang -target mips-linux-gnu' -mips64r2 -mabi=64' should produce an ELF64 and 'clang -target mips64-linux-gnu -mips32r2 -mabi=32' should produce an ELF32. In terms of code,

Le 18 juil. 2013 à 19:07, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> a écrit : > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Stéphane Letz <letz at grame.fr> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Our DSL LLVM IR emitted code (optimized with -O3 kind of IR ==> IR passes) runs slower when executed with the LLVM 3.3 JIT, compared to what we had with LLVM 3.1. What could be the reason? >>

I'm running LLVM under threadsanitizer (http://code.google.com/p/data-race-test/) to find and remove races in a larger program that uses LLVM as a library. One of the things that I found is that the TargetOptions are all global; you could create a TargetMachine targeting ARM and X86 in two threads, but they both have to share the same FloatABIType setting. This is silly, and I plan to fix it

On Dec 1, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > I'm running LLVM under threadsanitizer > (http://code.google.com/p/data-race-test/) to find and remove races in > a larger program that uses LLVM as a library. One of the things that I > found is that the TargetOptions are all global; you could create a > TargetMachine targeting ARM and X86 in two threads, but they both have

On 1 December 2011 17:15, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 1, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > >> I'm running LLVM under threadsanitizer >> (http://code.google.com/p/data-race-test/) to find and remove races in >> a larger program that uses LLVM as a library. One of the things that I >> found is that the TargetOptions are all

Hi all, A quick question: The current implementation of the "allow unsafe math" option is to specify it via the TargetOptions object. However, this prevents the target-independent optimizer from using it. Are there any opinions (ha!) on how this could be achieved in a nice clean manner which doesn't require using the TargetOptions object in the optimizer? -bw

I get a segfault with this code when setting the data layout: int main(int argc, char** argv) { llvm::InitializeNativeTarget(); llvm::LLVMContext TheContext; unique_ptr<Module> Mod(new Module("A",TheContext)); llvm::EngineBuilder engineBuilder(std::move(Mod)); std::string mcjit_error; engineBuilder.setMCPU(llvm::sys::getHostCPUName());

On Dec 1, 2011, at 5:23 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: >> Instead of adding a bunch of instance variables (+ getters/setters) into TargetMachine, why not make TargetOptions be a class, and have TM contain an instance of it? > > That works too, it makes little difference to me. One reason is that > most references to these globals are inside classes that derive from > TargetMachine so I

I am using the clang API (version 3.1 - trunk 153913) to compile some very simple code as follows class MyClass { ~MyClass() ; }; MyClass::~MyClass() { } int main() { return 0; } My problem is that I get the error message: test.cpp:20:10: error: destructor cannot have a return type MyClass::~MyClass() If someone can point me to the right direction that would be great. It compiles fine if

I understand you to mean that you have isolated the actual execution time as your point of comparison, as opposed to including runtime loading and so on. Is this correct? One thing that changed between 3.1 and 3.3 is that MCJIT no longer compiles the module during the engine creation process but instead waits until either a function pointer is requested or finalizeObject is called. I would

Hi, we generally run our JIT with UnsafeFPMath enabled, but there are a few specific instances where a block of code needs to follow strict FPMath. Is there a way to temporarily override TargetOptions for a specific block of IR? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello, I am using Ubuntu 11.10 64-bit. Following the instructions on the VMKit website I grabbed llvm, clang, and vmkit via svn (and GNU Classpath via the link of the page). Compilation of llvm, clang and classpath went fine. I had problems compiling vmkit, which seem to be related to a TargetOptions being required as a parameter when creating a TargetMachine in LLVM. This led to a couple other

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Dec 1, 2011, at 5:23 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: >>> Instead of adding a bunch of instance variables (+ getters/setters) into TargetMachine, why not make TargetOptions be a class, and have TM contain an instance of it? >> >> That works too, it makes little difference to me. One reason is that >> most references to these globals are inside classes

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Kamaljit Lall <klall at factset.com> wrote: > I am using the clang API (version 3.1 - trunk 153913) to compile some > very simple code as follows**** > > class MyClass > { > ~MyClass() ; > > }; > > MyClass::~MyClass() > { > > } > > int main() > { > return 0; > } **** > > My problem is that

To continue the discussion I started last year (see the link below) on embedding command-line options in bitcode, I came up with a plan to improve the way the backend changes UnsafeFPMath on a per-function basis. The code in trunk currently resets TargetOptions::UnsafeFPMath at the beginning of SelectionDAGISel::runOnMachineFunction to enable compiling one function with “unsafe-fp-math=true” and

...case ' ': break; case '0': OLvl = CodeGenOpt::None; break; case '1': OLvl = CodeGenOpt::Less; break; case '2': OLvl = CodeGenOpt::Default; break; case '3': OLvl = CodeGenOpt::Aggressive; break; } TargetOptions targetopts = InitTargetOptionsFromCodeGenFlags(); std::unique_ptr<TargetMachine> tmachine(moduletarget->createTargetMachine(moduletriple.getTriple(), cpuname, ftrlist, targetopts, Reloc::Default, CodeModel::Default, OLvl)); assert(tmachine && "Could not allocate target...