similar to: Lack of -O2 (or -O) gcc compiler flag causes package installation failure

Hello folks, I wrote a transforming looppass for my project, opt --help can see it. I want clang to use my pass too, so that I don't have to compile to IR, opt, and then llc to binary manually. Now I am trying to add my pass to O2 by mimicking LICM pass. I add a line "MPM.add(createMyPass());" in PassManagerBuilder::populateModulePassManager, and got assertion fail "void

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim Northover" <t.p.northover at gmail.com> > To: "Sanjay Patel" <spatel at rotateright.com> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 2:22:55 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] clang -O2 versus opt -O2 | llc | clang > > Hi Sanjay, > > >

I'm investigating a miscompilation bug ( http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=19823 ), but I've run into a problem: the output of the program is different when I compile the IR with clang compared to opt | llc | clang. Any clues on how to resolve this difference? $ ./opt -O1 19823.ll | ./llc | ./clang -x assembler - -o a.out ; ./a.out ; echo $? 1 $ ./opt -O2 19823.ll | ./llc | ./clang -x

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13 laforge@netfilter.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED OS/Version| |All ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13 ------- Additional Comments From netfilter@linuxace.com 2004-09-18 01:59 CEST ------- For the record, this patch allows it to compile: http://lists.netfilter.org/pipermail/netfilter-devel/2004-September/016718.html but not sure why this is important, or whether the above mindless fix misses anything. -- Configure bugmail:

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13 denton3@wp.pl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED ------- Additional Comments From denton3@wp.pl 2006-04-15 14:10

Valery A.Khamenya wrote: >>For example: >>$ llvmgcc ackerman.c -o ackerman -Wl,-native-cbe > > > BTW, Chris, what should be then an analogy > of "gcc -O3 -S foo.c" in LLVM framework? > > The invocation of > > $ llvmgcc -S ackerman.c -o ackerman -Wl,-native-cbe > > does not produce native assebler output as one might expect.

Hi All, I have installed llvm-gcc4 patch to enable various llvm optimizations at -O1/-O2/-O3. This means instead of $ llvm-gcc4 --emit-llvm foo.c -o foo.bc $ opt foo.bc -o foo_optimized.bc $ llc foo_optimized.bc -o foo.o One can directly use $ llvm-gcc4 -O2 foo.c -o foo.o to get optimized foo.o - Devang + + if (optimize > 0) { + + +

Hi, Does anyone know an easy way to do same optimisations as 'opt -O2' or 'opt -O3' in the JIT. I can do the tedious way: pass_manager->add(createInstructionCombiningPass()); pass_manager->add(createGVNPass()); etc. etc. but I would rather reuse the code in 'opt' to manage the passes. Cheers, Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text

Anthony Danalis wrote: > Hello, > > I'm writing a pass that adds a function prototype to the module during > doInitialization() and stores the pointer in a global variable. If I > run opt with "-O1" or less, everything works fine. However, If I call > opt with "-O2" or "-O3" then as soon as runOnFunction() is called, the > pointer

I was using 2.4, but I built 2.5 and it behaves the same. I will test the SVN head too. On Mar 11, 2009, at 10:41 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > Anthony Danalis wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I'm writing a pass that adds a function prototype to the module >> during >> doInitialization() and stores the pointer in a global variable. If I >> run opt with

Dear all, Is there a command line argument which prints the order of application of various analysis/transformation passes on a program using clang? -Suresh

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 03:24:01PM +0200, Gabor Greif wrote: > Hi all, > > today I was debugging some code (compiled by a 2 weeks old clang) on a > PowerPC embedded system using the newest gdb (v7.4). > > I got a backtrace like this: > > (gdb) bt > #0 0x0fe96314 in poll () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6 > #1 0x1002c8ac in mli_poll ( > fds=<error reading

Hi, Just wanted to point this out here, in case it hasn't been run into yet. I've filed a bug with MS already, but it might be a warning to anyone thinking about uninstalling their older versions. Workaround was to build lib/TableGen (well, all of LLVM really due to a case of laziness) at /O1 and utils/TableGen at /Od. Turning inline expansion to 0 apparently works as well.

Hi, I enabled the loop vectorizer for -O2 and -Os in r184084. Please let me know if you are experiencing any regressions. Thanks for all the people who contributed, evaluated, measured and reviewed this code. You are the best! Thanks, Nadav

> I enabled the loop vectorizer for -O2 and -Os in r184084. Congratulations! A lot of hard work went into getting us here. Tim.

Hello - We are building Speex 1.2rc1 on Symbian/S60 using the GNU csl-arm-2005Q1C tool chain provided in the S60 SDK. We build with the supplied config.h and define FIXED_POINT to 1. We found that the encoded audio is "garbled" when we build with GCC -O1 or -O2 optimization level with fixed point enabled. But if fixed point is enabled and no GCC optimization level is specified,

Hello, I'm using a Makevars.in file and running my code through gdb. I understand i should turn of -O2, but R's makeconf overrides my settings /ln/meraki/custom/lib64/R/etc/Makeconf:112: warning: overriding commands for target `.cc.o' in Makevars.in .cc.o: g++ -g ${PKG_CXXFLAGS} ${PKG_LIBS} ${RINC} ${RLIB} -c $< -o $@ Thank you S.

When I install an R package with cpp codes such as rrcov via CRAN (under R 3.1.1, using no Makevars file and under Ubuntu 14.04 using GCC 4.8), the cpp code is compiled with the -o3 flag (in fact, looking at the Makeconf file this seem to again be the default since R 3.1.1) But when I install my own package via CRAN it is compiled with the -o2 flag. My questions are what is causing my

> For example: > $ llvmgcc ackerman.c -o ackerman -Wl,-native-cbe BTW, Chris, what should be then an analogy of "gcc -O3 -S foo.c" in LLVM framework? The invocation of $ llvmgcc -S ackerman.c -o ackerman -Wl,-native-cbe does not produce native assebler output as one might expect. -- Valery