similar to: [LLVMdev] Helpful (?) hints

Patrick Simmons wrote: > Hello, > > I'm trying to print the instruction count of a bytecode file using the > 2.4 release of LLVM. I found llvm-2.4/lib/Analysis/Instcount.cpp but > I'm not sure what to do with it. I also looked at llvm-bcanalyzer. The > documentation says this command is supposed to print the instruction > count in the summary, but it doesn't

Hi, I am new to llvm and have read all the documents and managed to get the llvm tool working on linux without much problem. I am trying to generate some static analysis information about my program using llvm virtual machine architecture. the file is really simple hello world program with a small loop which increments a variable until a particular iteration. main() { int a,b,c; a=0; b=0; c=1;

On Mar 12, 2007, at 10:34 AM, Fabian Scheler wrote: > After playing around a bit with LLVM, I > decided to use LLVM, because of its great documentation, its clean and > straight-forward design and it because it seems to be easily > applicable also for beginners. A gratuitous plug for a recent research project: If you use LLVM, you can also get a compiler called SAFECode that (a)

Hello, I'm trying to print the instruction count of a bytecode file using the 2.4 release of LLVM. I found llvm-2.4/lib/Analysis/Instcount.cpp but I'm not sure what to do with it. I also looked at llvm-bcanalyzer. The documentation says this command is supposed to print the instruction count in the summary, but it doesn't seem to be doing so. Does anyone know what I should be

There’s a few passes in LLVM that make heavy use of a big DenseMap, one that potentially gets filled with up to 1 entry for each instruction in the function. EarlyCSE is the best example, but Reassociate and MachineCSE have this to some degree as well (there might be others?). To put it simply: at least in my profile, EarlyCSE spends ~1/5 of its time growing DenseMaps. This is kind of… bad.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Tanu Sharma wrote: > I am compiling SPEC 2000 benchmarks with llvm .Got stuck with > calculating "execution time" of all the .bc and native files. > > The log for nightly test itself gives execution times but I am passing > the bytecode files to my pass which gives another bytecode file.I have > to calculate execution time of such bytecode and

> On Mar 15, 2016, at 4:09 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > > > On 03/15/2016 03:07 PM, via llvm-dev wrote: >> There’s a few passes in LLVM that make heavy use of a big DenseMap, one that potentially gets filled with up to 1 entry for each instruction in the function. EarlyCSE is the best example, but Reassociate and MachineCSE have this to

What should we use instead of DenseMap? —escha > On Mar 15, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > > yes it makes sense. Avoid using DenseMap when the size of the map is expected to be large but can not be pre-determined. > > David > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:07 PM, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at

> Hi All, > Attached above my InstCount.cpp after modification. I did simple > modification which is the following (The statements between the > ************** ) : > bool InstCount::runOnFunction(Function &F) { > unsigned StartMemInsts = > NumGetElementPtrInst + NumLoadInst + NumStoreInst + NumCallInst + > NumInvokeInst + NumAllocaInst; >

Hello All, Thanks for the reply.I can generate the reports by compiling Spec through llvm, but that couldn't resolve my problem. I m trying to determine execution time for the bytecode and native files , which are obtained as a result of running my pass over the original bytecode .I am running these experiments on spec benchmark. In SPEC we have command line tools such as runspec where

Great! For the hotness, try creating a small test case with a very hot loop that iterates many times. Let me know if you are still having trouble. While the llvm-dis serialization is being discussed, I suppose at the very least this can go in with the rest of the existing YAML summary dumping and get emitted from llvm-lto2 using the patch Peter attached. Peter - do you want to add that to

On 10/25/2017 12:10 PM, Evgeny Astigeevich via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi Chandler, > > I ran the LNT benchmarks and SPEC2k6.train on AArch64 Cortex-A57. I > used revisions: Clang 316561, LLVM 316563. > > Options: -O3 -mcpu=cortex-a57 -fomit-frame-pointer > -fexperimental-new-pass-manager > > Regressions: execution time increase > > LNT > >

Hi Shuo, I am CCing your questions to the LLVM developers list so others can reply or correct me. >I have a few questions about LLVM: >(1) The LLVM tutorial says LLVM can be used in architecture research. If >I want to run my program on an instruction set defined by myself, is LLVM >a right tool to do that? > I don't think so. >In this aspect, is LLVM similar to

Hi, Sean: I'm sorry I lie. I didn't mean to lie. I did try to avoid making a *BIG* change to the IPO pass-ordering for now. However, when I make a minor change to populateLTOPassManager() by separating module-pass and non-module-passes, I saw quite a few performance difference, most of them are degradations. Attacking these degradations one by one in a piecemeal manner is wasting

Target: FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE on i386 autoconf says: configure:2122: checking build system type configure:2140: result: i386-unknown-freebsd6.2 [...] configure:2721: gcc -v >&5 Using built-in specs. Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 3.4.6 [FreeBSD] 20060305 [...] objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc. Release build. llvm-gcc 4.2 from source.

Hi, LLVM 2.1-pre1 test results: Linux (SUSE) on x86 (P4) Release mode, but with assertions enabled LLVM srcdir == objdir # of expected passes 2250 # of expected failures 5 I ran the llvm-test suite on my desktop while I was also working on that PC, so don't put too much trust in the timing info. Especially during the "spiff" test the machine was swapping

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Charles Saternos <charles.saternos at gmail.com > wrote: > Alright, now it outputs YAML in the following format: > > --- > NamedGlobalValueMap: > X: > - Kind: GlobalVar > Linkage: ExternalLinkage > NotEligibleToImport: false > Live: false > a: > - Kind:

Hello, I was interested in how much Type-Based Alias Analysis helps to optimize code. For that purpose, I've compared three sets of benchmarks: compiled without TBAA, compiled with a default TBAA metadata format, and compiled with new TBAA metadata format. As a set of benchmarks, I've used the LLVM test suite (http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html#test-suite-overview) which has a lot of

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:42:18PM -0700, Tanya Lattner wrote: > The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: > http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ > > [...] > > 2) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the llvm-gcc4.0 source. > Compile everything. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite > (make TEST=nightly report). > > Send

Target: FreeBSD 7.0-RC1 on amd64. autoconf says: configure:2122: checking build system type configure:2140: result: x86_64-unknown-freebsd7.0 [...] configure:2721: gcc -v >&5 Using built-in specs. Target: amd64-undermydesk-freebsd Configured with: FreeBSD/amd64 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 4.2.1 20070719 [FreeBSD] [...] objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc. Release