similar to: [LLVMdev] opt, llcc, ll++, -O1, -O2, -O3

On Sat, 1 May 2004, [koi8-r] "Valery A.Khamenya[koi8-r] " wrote: > there are two issues concerning invoking optimizations: > > 1. > this document: > http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/GettingStarted.html > is very nice, it would be good though to add in a section > > An Example Using the LLVM Tool Chain > > examples on optimization step. That's an

> For example: > $ llvmgcc ackerman.c -o ackerman -Wl,-native-cbe BTW, Chris, what should be then an analogy of "gcc -O3 -S foo.c" in LLVM framework? The invocation of $ llvmgcc -S ackerman.c -o ackerman -Wl,-native-cbe does not produce native assebler output as one might expect. -- Valery

Valery A.Khamenya wrote: >>For example: >>$ llvmgcc ackerman.c -o ackerman -Wl,-native-cbe > > > BTW, Chris, what should be then an analogy > of "gcc -O3 -S foo.c" in LLVM framework? > > The invocation of > > $ llvmgcc -S ackerman.c -o ackerman -Wl,-native-cbe > > does not produce native assebler output as one might expect.

hi all, well, i have set up proper command line parameters for for C-Shootout tests to get reasonable running time for benchmarking. I have compared "gcc -O3" and "llvmgcc -Wl,-native-cbe" here goes output (which shows that llvm is already better for test with intensive function calls): time -p ./gcc_ackermann 11 user 2.36 time -p ./llvm_ackermann 11 user 1.07

On Wed, 5 May 2004, [koi8-r] "Valery A.Khamenya[koi8-r] " wrote: > hi all, > > well, i have set up proper command line parameters for > for C-Shootout tests to get reasonable running time > for benchmarking. I have compared "gcc -O3" and > "llvmgcc -Wl,-native-cbe" Cool. Each of these benchmarks has a default problem size for when no arguments

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

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

Hi, I'm able to build the llvm tools on the MinGW platform: burg, fpcmp, tblgen, llvm-as, llvm-dis, opt, gccas, llc, llvm-link, lli, gccld, llvm-stub, analyze and extract. I wonder if these tools are sufficient to start build the cfrontend? Henrik. _________________________________________________________________ Undg� pop-ups med MSN Toolbar - http://toolbar.msn.dk hent den gratis!

Hi, I'm a newbie and just installed LLVM on a Linux box. I followe "The LLVM Getting Started Guide" on the web and have some trouble on the section "An Example Using the LLVM Tool Chain". When I compile the simple hello.c program with "llvmgcc hello.c -o hello", the system complains -- gcc: installation problem, cannot exec `gccas': Permission denied. Does

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Jeff Cohen wrote: > The problem with building the frontend on Windows is that gcc cannot be > bootstrapped using Window's native compiler -- i.e. VC++ -- unlike every > other platform. It can be built on Windows using gcc, of course, but > even then only if the entire GNU environment is present. Yeah, annoying. Unfortunately we're not up to fixing GCC :)

The problem with building the frontend on Windows is that gcc cannot be bootstrapped using Window's native compiler -- i.e. VC++ -- unlike every other platform. It can be built on Windows using gcc, of course, but even then only if the entire GNU environment is present. The real problem is that the bootstrapped frontend binaries built using gcc may not properly link with LLVM binaries built

Perhaps I am missing some link. Need a bit clarification. For the C language, I want to access the LLVM code immediately generated by llvmgcc(cfrontend/bin/gcc) before it undergoes any further transformation or optimization. 1) Are there any libraries that enable me to parse C code and create the Module instance. 2) If answer to 1) is no, then is there some other way to create Module

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,

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

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 \

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]$

hello everyone, I few days ago I had some code (for the PyPy project) that llc - march=c converted to a switch statement and gcc compiled that nicely to a jumptable in the .s file. Now I try to reproduce when directly going from a .ll to a .s file. But I now see a long list of compare and jumps instead of the jumptable. Is there a transformation that does this if->switch(ing) or is

Reid, I think it is the first time it is run that the errors occcur !? Not sure but that would seem logical. Aaron

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

> 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. I had a similar question and Chris recommended that I edit the addPassesToEmitAssembly method. Quoting him: "