similar to: LLVM transformation

Your use case seems to be somewhat similar to what LTO does, so it may be possible to hack something up in LTO. Perhaps you'd need to have a custom pass pipeline that would accomplish what you need. Since you say you can't link the two files, I imagine you'd need to make sure you don't emit code from one of them in the LTO link step or something along those lines. In any case,

Hi all, I am trying to run two llvm passes on two different IRs to finish my analysis. These two passes need to exchange information during their excecution. I am doing so because I can't link the two IRs I want to analyze together as a big IR and run my llvm pass on it. What I want to do specifically is: The first IR will call the functions in the second IR. Whenver there is a function

Hello, Ying. > But if a module is constructed by hand, how can I transform it into a > SSA-based llvm? LLVM IR is *always* in SSA form, even if you're constructing module by hands (Verifier pass actually does the check and reject invalid code). If you want to eliminate memory accesses and transform them to registers & phi's you might want to run mem2reg pass also. -- With best

Hi Hideki, Thanks for the interesting writeup! > On Aug 27, 2016, at 7:15 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 25 August 2016 at 05:46, Saito, Hideki via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Now, I have one question. Suppose we'd like to split the vectorization decision as an Analysis pass and vectorization

Hi Dr. Viechtbauer, I'm doing meta-analysis using your package 'metafor'. I used the 'IRFT' to transform the incident rate. But when I tried to back-transform the summary estimates from function rma, I don't know what's the appropriate ti to feed in function transf.iirft. I searched and found your post about using harmonic mean for ni to back-transform the double

Nobody give comments on this? Is the source to source transformation of LLVM robust enough? Thanks in advance. Shengmei _____ Problems of source to source transformation of LLVM Hi, I did experiments of the source transformation of LLVM on SPEC2000 C programs. But I found most benchmarks can't be transformed from source to source successfully. The steps are as

Hello ! I have a toolchain of two passes. First one, is a transformation pass that should add metadata to some structures (instructions/variables) and the second pass is an analyzing pass which needs to access the added metadata. The problem is with my adding metadata transformation pass. There might be two problems(or both): First, maybe I don't add correctly metadata.

Hi all: I'm writing a research prototype on LLVM 1.9. Given a module ,what is the right way to get the SSA-based llvm-IR? As I know , llvmgcc generates SSA-based bytecode. But if a module is constructed by hand, how can I transform it into a SSA-based llvm? Thanks. Ying -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, I did experiments of the source transformation of LLVM on SPEC2000 C programs. But I found most benchmarks can't be transformed from source to source successfully. The steps are as follows. 1. I write a script to transform every .c file into .bc file, and then use llc to transform .bc file to .c files. I don't know if there are any method to transform many .c files

Hi; I was planning to implement a profile guided optimization technique in LLVM. In the open source projects list of the LLVM site; I saw "code layout" is a transformation that can be worth looking at as it will use of profiles (possibly path profiles). So I was thinking of implementing either Pettis-Hansen's (Profile guided code positioning, Pettis & Hansen) or Gloy's

Hi, I agree that the earlier example was already racy due to shared flag variable. Sorry for the wrong example. Please ignore it. I have modified the program as follows. The only shared variable is 'a' and the following is a non-racy program. int a; int readA(bool flag) { int r=0; if(flag) { r = a; } return r; } void writeA(){ a = 42; } int main() { bool flag = false;

Thanks Weiren! My goal is to transform the code automatically by doing some code analysis, instead of rewriting it manually. To do this source level auto transformation, do you have any suggestions on what tool to use? Thanks again!! On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 04:25 陳韋任 via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > 2018-01-15 9:36 GMT+08:00 Linchuan Chen via llvm-dev <

Dear all, I'm working on a simple code transformation problem that can be described as below: for a C++ loop: *for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) {* * a = M[i] + b;* * }* I want to transform it to: *int A[4]; * * for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) {* * A[0] = M[i] + b;* * A[1] = M[i] + b;* * A[2] = M[i] + b;* * A[3] = M[i] + b;* *

Hi, I plan to use LLVM for some compiler transformation. My requirement is that I require a source to source transformation. I need to parse the given program and look for loops. Then I need to create another source file where I can use this source information like the iteration bounds and the loop body into the new file. I was looking at the LoopExtract pass in LLVM passes. However, it enables

On 7/26/11 5:37 PM, Xueying ZHANG wrote: > Hi John, > > Thanks for your reply! I'm CC'ing this to the list in case anyone knows why you're seeing this behavior. > > Now, I know the different between llvm.returnaddress(0) and > llvm.returnaddress(1). I modify the StackPortector.cpp and I just want > to get value of the return address stored on the stack. >

2018-01-15 9:36 GMT+08:00 Linchuan Chen via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > Dear all, > I'm working on a simple code transformation problem that can be > described as below: > > for a C++ loop: > > *for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) {* > * a = M[i] + b;* > * }* > > I want to transform it to: > > *int A[4]; *

Hi, Gerolf. We've been a bit quiet for some time. After listening to feedback on the project internally and externally, we decided to take a more generally accepted community development model ---- building up through a collection of small incremental changes ---- than trying to make a big step forward. That change of course took a bit of time, but we are getting close to the first NFC patch

On 6/22/20 4:54 PM, Yang Shi wrote: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 4:02 PM John Hubbard <jhubbard at nvidia.com> wrote: >> >> On 2020-06-22 15:33, Yang Shi wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 3:30 PM Yang Shi <shy828301 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:53 PM Zi Yan <ziy at nvidia.com> wrote: >>>>> On 22 Jun 2020, at

Hi, I am looking for thoughts on the following LLVM transformation. Consider the following transformation which replaces conditional load(a) with load(a);select instructions. Source -------- int a; bool flag; int readA() { int r=0; if(flag) { r = a; } return r; } Command -------- clang++ -std=c++11 -pthread -emit-llvm <filename>.cpp -S;opt -O3 <filename>.ll -o

Hi all, Debugging a mis-compilation is always time consuming. I recently did some attempt on bisecting bad pass for LLVM and would like to share some ideas about how do we make it work. And meanwhile, I would also encourage the community to make each pass more bisectable with help of DebugCounter. We have already got a very useful helper in LLVM for pass level bisection, which is OptBisect