similar to: How to prevent optimizing away a call + its arguments

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 05:25:04PM -0700, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi Kuba, > > Try: > > __attribute__(optnone) > > See > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#optnone-clang-optnone Actually, it should be enough to use: __attribute__((noinline)) void please_do_not_optimize_me_away(int arg1, void *arg2) { asm

Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > What you're seeing is just the fact that lit is waiting on > subprocesses (select is waiting on the pipes i suspect). Right. Some digging revealed that it is waiting on getline_nohang.cc.tmp, a tsan test. I see that this test has been disabled for NetBSD, due to it sometimes failing. I'm seeing the same

Hello, For the following test case, reg.c #include <stdio.h> int getinput() { static int u=10; return u++; } int main() { int a,b,c,d,e,f,g; a=getinput(); b=getinput(); c=getinput(); d=getinput(); e=getinput(); f=getinput(); g=getinput(); printf("%d %d %d %d %d %d %d\n",a,b,c,d,e,f,g); a=b=c=d=e=f=g=0; return 0; } *1.

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 05:35:51PM +0000, David Blaikie wrote: > optnone should work, but really noinline should probably (Chandler: Can you > confirm: is it reasonable to model noinline as "no interprocedural analysis > across this function boundary" (so FunctionAttrs should do the same thing > for noinline as it does for optnone, for example? ie: not derive any new >

> > but doesn't emit optnone and nounwind attributes > s/nounwind/noinline On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:35 AM Jakub (Kuba) Kuderski < kubakuderski at gmail.com> wrote: > As far as I understand, gllvm doesn't run LTO pipeline or any cross-module > optimization, and the optimization level provided is only used to compile > each Translation Unit separately. > If you

This works great. > You can also try using the gllvm wrapper: https://github.com/SRI-CSL/gllvm ; it's quite reliable and easy to use in my experience. Just to be sure. Only one version of bc file will be generated that corresponds to the compiler options provide at configure? The original approach using ld.gold will provide several .bc files that correspond to different stages of the

LLVM Weekly - #189, Aug 14th 2017 ================================= If you prefer, you can read a HTML version of this email at <http://llvmweekly.org/issue/189>. Welcome to the one hundred and eighty-ninth issue of LLVM Weekly, a weekly newsletter (published every Monday) covering developments in LLVM, Clang, and related projects. LLVM Weekly is brought to you by [Alex

Hi David, Chandler, I see lldb tests hang often, and then I kill the dotest process. I'd like to stop running check-all too, but I feel it's important when I modify FileCheck. The flakiness that Chandler mentioned makes it time-consuming to verify test results. Joel On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:41 PM Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > What

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 18:15, Min-Yih Hsu via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > David mentioned in D87337 that LLVM has used similar techniques on code > size (not sure what he was referencing, my guess will be something related > to hot-cold code splitting). > IIUC, it's just using optsize instead of optnone. The idea is that, if the code really doesn't

FYI David is referring to PGSO (profile-guided size optimization) as it exists directly under that name, see: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67120. And yeah using PGSO is selecting optsize while this change is selecting optnone. On 9/9/20, 10:58 AM, "llvm-dev on behalf of Tobias Hieta via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 9:23 PM Wenlei He via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I think calling PGSO size opt is probably a bit misleading though. It’s > more of an adaptive opt strategy, and it can improve performance too due to > better locality. We have something similar internally for selecting opt > level based on profile hotness too under AutoFDO. > >

> On 2 Sep 2016, at 12:11, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Kuba Brecka <kuba.brecka at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2 Sep 2016, at 11:18, Dmitry Vyukov via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Kuba Brecka <kuba.brecka at gmail.com>

On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:27 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> > wrote: >> >> On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Eli

On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> > wrote: >> >> On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 7:31 PM, Eli

Well, 'optnone' is already not identical to -O0, and given the nature of things, probably can't be; but I am persuaded that it's reasonable for it to honor the -fast-isel option as a debugging tactic. I'll take an AI to make this happen. Thanks, --paulr P.S. One nit, the "O0 + optnone" case should not have an asterisk, the FastISel flag is not manipulated if the opt

In D28404, Mehdi wanted to use the 'optnone' attribute as a way to record "I was compiled with -O0" in the IR, because it seems like a good idea to remember that fact in an LTO compilation and there is no way to remember that fact currently. A couple of people felt it might be better to have this idea discussed on the dev list, where it might get better exposure, so I'm

> > The other thing that might work, is having TargetMachine remember how > > the fast-isel option got set, and make OptLevelChanger do the right > > thing. But that seems like a hack to work around Mips not obeying the > > specified optimization level, honestly. > > I think we should do that as well. I don't think it's right that optnone > enables Fast

Hello, Could anyone kindly explain to me why the 'g()' in the following function cannot have tail call optimization? > void f(int* x); > void g(); > void h(int v) { > f(&v); > g(); > } > A while ago I was taught that tail call optimization cannot apply if local variables needs to be kept alive, but 'g()' doesn't seem to require anything to be

The driving goal of 'optnone' is to have an easy way for programmers to get an "-O0 like" debugging experience for selected functions, without making them build everything with –O0. To that end, we turn off as much optimization as we reasonably can, but in the context of a pipeline that is generally expecting optimizations to be enabled, in practice we can't exactly match –O0

Hi Manuel, I believe you're maintaining Phabricator at reviews.llvm.org <http://reviews.llvm.org/>. Duncan likes to send his patch comments via email, like in the example below. Do you know why don't his replies get imported into the web interface? The reply was sent to "reviews+D24569+public+a5763c0a090df06f at reviews.llvm.org