similar to: opt: how to invoke optimizations manually?

Hi, You should add this option to the first command *"-disable-O0-optnone"* so *clang -Xclang -disable-O0-optnone -emit-llvm -S -o without_dce.ll test.c* then *opt -dce -S < without_dce.ll > with_dce.ll* HTH, Son Tuan Vu On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 2:15 PM, HwJ via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello, > > I'd like to measure the impact of

I feel like it might save people some significant time in the long run if opt printed a helpful little error message when it is instructed to run >0 transformation passes and also all functions it sees are optnone. John On 3/16/18 7:30 AM, Son Tuan VU via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi, > > You should add this option to the first command > *"-disable-O0-optnone"* so *clang

one more guy fell into "optnone": https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-April/122602.html On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:31:23PM -0600, John Regehr via llvm-dev wrote: >I feel like it might save people some significant time in the long run >if opt printed a helpful little error message when it is instructed to >run >0 transformation passes and also all functions it

Hi Vedant, Thank you for your reply. I think I can make this debugify-each mode, but I guess this is reserved for your GSoC project ? However, if I understand correctly, we do not want to take the output of the first check-debugify (I mean the .ll file with potentially all the WARNINGs and ERRORs after the first pass) as input for the second debugify. What we need is to take the fresh output of

> On Mar 16, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vedant, > > Thank you for your reply. I think I can make this debugify-each mode, but I guess this is reserved for your GSoC project ? No, there's no reserved work. If you'd like to work on this I encourage you to do so. There's plenty of other work slated for the GSoC project.

Mhm I see now, thanks for your explanation! Son Tuan Vu On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > On Mar 16, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vedant, > > Thank you for your reply. I think I can make this debugify-each mode, but > I guess this is reserved for your GSoC project ? > >

Hi Vedant, hi all, My goal is to measure debug info loss of *each* optimization pass in LLVM. I am trying to create a debugify-each mode in opt, inspired by verify-each mode which is supposed to already work. However, if I understand correctly, the verify-each mode (triggered by -verify-each option in opt) only works when we provide a pass list or a pass pipeline. Is this intended? I mean, why

Hi Vedant, I have tried to implement the fix you proposed, but it didn't work as expected. I created a new *Module* Pass Manager (not Function Pass Manager) and override the *add()* method like this: class DebugifyEachPassManager : public legacy::PassManager { public: void add(Pass *P) override { PassManager::add(createDebugifyPass()); PassManager::add(P);

Hello, > On Apr 26, 2018, at 6:44 AM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vedant, > > I have tried to implement the fix you proposed, but it didn't work as expected. I created a new Module Pass Manager (not Function Pass Manager) and override the add() method like this: > > class DebugifyEachPassManager : public legacy::PassManager { >

Hi Son Tuan, Thanks for taking a look at this :). Responses inline -- > On Mar 14, 2018, at 8:11 AM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vedant, hi all, > > My goal is to measure debug info loss of each optimization pass in LLVM. I am trying to create a debugify-each mode in opt, inspired by verify-each mode which is supposed to already work. +

Hello, while invoking opt with all possible optimization pairs I stumbled over a stack dump when doing -early-cse-memssa twice: $ clang -Xclang -disable-O0-optnone -S -o fannkuch7.ll -emit-llvm fannkuch7.c $ opt -S -o fannkuch7.ll -early-cse-memssa -early-cse-memssa fannkuch7.ll Questions: Is it illegal to call -early-cse-memssa twice? Are there any other incompatible optimization orders?

Hi Vedant, Thanks for your reply. More comments inline. Son Tuan Vu On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > Hi, > > + Chandler, who has a lot more experience with our pass managers. > > On Apr 20, 2018, at 12:56 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > + Vedant: what do you think about the last point, since

Hello, Has anyone taken a look at this bug? I really want to fix this, but as Paul pointed out, this requires a lot of care... Thank you for your help Son Tuan Vu On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you all for taking a look at this. I pasted the C source then > deleted it because I was afraid that it was too long to read...

Hello all, I came across the code of Verifier, and see that it doesn't modify the IR at all. Why it is not considered as an analysis pass? Actually, this will have impact on debugify-each and print-before/after-all: we are not supposed to print/debugify Verifier pass, but since Verifier is declared as a transformation (well, a non-analysis) pass, we actually do print/debugify it. Thanks for

Ok, now I think I've found a bug: Consider this C code: void bar(int b) { int a[10]; memset(a, b, 10); } which generates this IR code: define dso_local void @bar(i32 %b) #0 { entry: %b.addr = alloca i32, align 4 %a = alloca [10 x i32], align 16 store i32 %b, i32* %b.addr, align 4 %arraydecay = getelementptr inbounds [10 x i32], [10 x i32]* %a, i64 0, i64 0 %0 = bitcast i32*

+ Vedant: what do you think about the last point, since Debugify is also related? Son Tuan Vu On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Philip Pfaffe <philip.pfaffe at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Son, > > PassManagerBuilder is used to populate legacy PassManagers. That role is > taken over by PassBuilder for new-PM passes. > > Cheers, > Philip > > 2018-04-18 13:40 GMT+02:00

Hello all, Does anyone know how to define a pure intrinsic in LLVM IR? I have tried almost every intrinsic property from llvm/include/llvm/IR/Intrinsics.td but haven't found anything. Or maybe this is not supported in the IR yet? Thank you for your help, Best, Son Tuan Vu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Yes that is what he meant. "-dce, -adce, etc" are command line options consumed by tools/opt/opt.cpp to give to the PassManagerBuilder that it creates. The parsing of those options doesn't exist in any of the llvm library code that is linked into clang. Clang has its own code for populating a PassManagerBuilder in tools/clang/lib/CodeGen/BackendUtil.cpp ~Craig On Mon, Jan 8, 2018

Hello, Does anyone know if it is possible to RAUW the Metadata? I took a look at the source for it and IIUC, it is not possible. What should I do to implement the RAUW for DINode (more precisely DILocation)? Thank you for your help, Son Tuan Vu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi Johannes, Thanks for your reply. I now see more clearly how things work with these properties. However, what would be an object whose address is potentially known by a callee? I suppose the intrinsic arguments and global variable? So IIUC, if not restricted by *only properties, an intrinsic could access to: - only its arguments if IntrArgMemOnly specified, - its arguments and the global