similar to: [LLVMdev] Packages

> In other words, I'd like to take a set of bytecode files, optimize them > together even though they don't form a complete program, and then write > out the new (optimized) bytecode files. It would be preferable to write > them out to a single archive rather than to individual bytecode files > again. Can this be done in LLVM today? If not, what would it take to >

On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 10:44, Chris Lattner wrote: > > In other words, I'd like to take a set of bytecode files, optimize them > > together even though they don't form a complete program, and then write > > out the new (optimized) bytecode files. It would be preferable to write > > them out to a single archive rather than to individual bytecode files > >

This didn't work as I tried with 197.parser. it works without "-Wl,-disable-opt" switch though. [197.parser]$ llvm-gcc analyze-linkage.c and.c build-disjuncts.c extract-links.c fast-match.c idiom.c main.c massage.c parse.c post-process.c print.c prune.c read-dict.c utilities.c xalloc.c word-file.c strncasecmp.c -Wa,-disable-opt -Wl,-disable-opt -lm -o llvm_parser [197.parser]$

Long Fei wrote: > > I am investigating some inlining issue, so I did > > llvm-gcc aaa.c bbb.c ... nnn.c -o output > opt -inline -inline-threshold=xxx < output.bc | llc -march=c > > output_inline.c I am unsure of whether the LLVM GCC frontend does any inlining. However, I do know that your methods above run the LLVM inlining pass, albeit indirectly. If you use

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Long Fei wrote: > > This didn't work as I tried with 197.parser. it works without > "-Wl,-disable-opt" switch though. > > [197.parser]$ llvm-gcc analyze-linkage.c and.c build-disjuncts.c > extract-links.c fast-match.c idiom.c main.c massage.c parse.c post-process.c > print.c prune.c read-dict.c utilities.c xalloc.c word-file.c

I am investigating some inlining issue, so I did llvm-gcc aaa.c bbb.c ... nnn.c -o output opt -inline -inline-threshold=xxx < output.bc | llc -march=c > output_inline.c 1) I noticed that even if I set xxx to 0 or even a very small negative number, many functions are eliminated. I am wondering if these functions are inlined by the frontend, or identified as deadcode. For instance,

Hi all LLVMor, I just tried to compile a simple code and analyze the number of the basic blocks. But after compile, what I got, the bytecode is seems to be optimized bytecode. So the information of basic blocks is not what I expected. I want ot use the code as example to see how some of code optimization methods work. However, after compiling file using llvm test.c -o test, bytecode file

I am interested in analyzing the bytecode code produced for C files. By default, inlining of user and library functions (libc) is done. If I turn off inlining (-disable-inlining in gccas and gccld) then no inlining is done. I want to be able to inline user code but disallow library code to be inlined. In trying to understand the InlineSimple.cpp code, I see that library functions are

ymxia at nudt.edu.cn wrote: > Hi, > > I want to check some properties of linux kernel with llvm, but I don't know how to compile a > > linux kernel to an llvm's .bc file. I have let llvm's gcc front-end ignore inline assembly by > > modifying cfrontend/src/gcc/llvm-expand.c, and replace CC/as/ar in the Makefile of the kernel > > with

Suppose, I have a Pass1 implemented as a subclass of Pass, with source code in the directory of llvm source base( transform/analyze ) I can run that pass through opt on the bytecode emitted by gcc frontend through opt tool. However, I want that Pass1 to be the part of the actual GCC compiler. I want to know how I can position Pass1 among other passes /optimizations/ code generations. e.g if

Chandler/Domagoj, On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 10:53 -0500, Chandler Carruth wrote: > Unless I'm missing something, the problem lies directly with the fact > that you are trying to do a link-stage operation with the GCC > frontend. GCC, by default, probably runs "ld" or another system > linker, which grabs the executable from binutils. This linker hasn't > been modified

Hi, I am wondering whether the bytecode generated by my llvm-gcc is correct? When I run $ llvm-gcc hello.c -o hello What I get is hello.exe.bc, and hello.exe (I can actually llvm-dis the bytecode file which is hello.exe.bc). However, I do not get a shell script(named hello) as stated in the documentation... Best Regards, Kiat On 5/25/05, Aaron Gray <angray at beeb.net> wrote: >

I know that Al Stone has compiled llvm-gcc4 successfully and I can report the same. The problem I consistently run into is that llvm-gcc ends up producing native format output; it does not produce bytecode, nor does it invoke gccas or gccld. I'm using the latest svn, and my configure args are: --prefix=/work/scottm/llvm-cfrontend/obj/../i686-pc-linux-gnu \

Ryan Brown wrote: > I don't think llvm-gcc4 uses gccas or gccld, but it can emit bytecode > if you give it the --emit-llvm option: > llvm-gcc --emit-llvm -c -o foo.bc foo.c That's a bit asymmetric with the previous gcc3 version, isn't it? That would mean that the "An Example Using the LLVM Tool Chain" section needs to be updated for the gcc4 frontend. OTOH, I could

Reid Spencer wrote: > On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 20:43 -0800, Wink Saville wrote: > >>> Try passing "-L/opt/llvm-1.6/llvm-gcc/lib/ -lcrtend" to llvm-ld. >>> >> This didn't work for me: >> llvm-ld -o t1.app t1.bc t1.a -L/opt/llvm-1.6/llvm-gcc/lib/ -lcrtend.a >> >> I get two warning's about library 'crtend' missing

Hi there, I'm trying to build llvm under cygwin running under windows xp, and have struck the following problem: -- llvm: tools-only built ok -- cfrontend: built ok -- llvm: full build failed at the following point: make[3]: Entering directory `/cygdrive/d/3rd-party/llvm/runtime/GCCLibraries/crtend' Compiling crtend.c to bytecode Compiling listend.ll to bytecode Linking comp_main.bc

On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 11:17, Chris Lattner wrote: > No, it's all or nothing. Once linked, they cannot be seperated (easily). > However, especially when using the JIT, there is little overhead for > running a gigantic program that only has 1% of the functions in it ever > executed... Perhaps in the general case, but what if its running on an embedded system and the "gigantic

Folks, As of the writing of this note, the llvmc tool is enabled for build on the CVS head. I'm encouraging you to try it out, provide some feedback, and help with the issues below. llvmc is now able to correctly link a pure bytecode version of any Stacker program. This includes translation with stkrc, optimization with opt and linking with llvm-link. It is also able to find Stacker's

Misha Brukman wrote: > Hey, Jakob -- > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 05:55:07PM +0100, Jakob Praher wrote: > >>I'm really new to llvm. I've successfully bootstrapped llvm-14 on my >>system and am able to successfully compile c code to llvm. >> >>the problem is now that gccld is complaining that it can't find the >>libraries, like "c" or

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, Domagoj Babic wrote: > These should add xIDs for several passes. Please let me know if there're > any problems with the code. I'm a very novice C++ and LLVM programmer, > so please bear with me. The patches look great, applied: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20060501/034450.html