similar to: [LLVMdev] Area for improvement

When I increased COLS to the point where the loop could no longer be unrolled, the selection dag code generator generated effectively the same code as the default X86 code generator. Lots of redundant imul/movl/addl sequences. It can't clean it up either. Only unrolling all nested loops permits it to be optimized away, regardless of code generator. Jeff Cohen wrote: > I noticed

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Jeff Cohen wrote: > I noticed that fourinarow is one of the programs in which LLVM is much slower > than GCC, so I decided to take a look and see why that is so. The program > has many loops that look like this: > > #define ROWS 6 > #define COLS 7 > > void init_board(char b[COLS][ROWS+1]) > { > int i,j; > > for

Sorry, I thought I was running selection dag isel but I screwed up when trying out the really big array. You're right, it does clean it up except for the multiplication. So LoopStrengthReduce is not ready for prime time and doesn't actually get used? I might consider whipping it into shape. Does it still have to handle getelementptr in its full generality? Chris Lattner wrote:

Hi , I got a few for writing a pass. 1) Is it possible to use input parameters in command line ? For example, we got our own pass, ie. HELLO opt -load ../../Debug/lib/libHELLO.so -HELLO < hello.bc From the above command line, could we use some input parameter and we can read those parameter in Pass routine? 2) For splitting BB, the way what I did is to pick up instruction

hi, I want to know what is exact meaning in the following code. target endian-- %struct..TorRec-- %struct.TorRec-- implementation-- ;<sbyte>[#uses=1/0]-- how to explain them in details? Does anyone give me a guide? thanks yueqiang -------------------------------------------------------------- target endian = little target pointersize = 32 %struct..TorRec = type { int, void ()* }

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Jeff Cohen wrote: > Sorry, I thought I was running selection dag isel but I screwed up when > trying out the really big array. You're right, it does clean it up except > for the multiplication. > > So LoopStrengthReduce is not ready for prime time and doesn't actually get > used? I don't know what the status of it is. You could try it out,

Hello, I've just downloaded the latest release of LLVM, and playing with the following simple example: int main() { int r(0); for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i) r += i; ; return r; } I compile it and then run: analyze -indvars x.bc which prints: Printing analysis 'Induction Variable Analysis' for function 'main': and nothing else. It is a

OK, thanks Chris, I've found that running opt -loopsimplify -instcombine -indvars -stats gives me the setup I need for this transformation, and a small patch makes it happen in the simple case we discussed. However, I'm having some trouble when things get a bit more complicated with 3 nesting levels: int A[3000000], B[20000], C[100], Z; int main() { int i, j, k, *a, *b,

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > I've just downloaded the latest release of LLVM, and playing with the > following simple example: > > int main() > { > int r(0); > for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i) > r += i; > ; > return r; > } When I compiled it, I got the following LLVM code: int %main() { entry: call void %__main( )

Hi, I have generated llvm assembly file using following commands: llvm-ld main.o fir.o llvm-dis a.out.bc I get a.out.ll as the llvm assembly file. When i go through this assembly file I come across the following code fir.entry: ; preds = %loopexit.1.i call void %print( sbyte* getelementptr ([2 x sbyte]* %.str_3, int 0, int 0), float* getelementptr ([97 x float]* %y, int 0, int 0), int 97 )

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 04:05:32PM +0300, Vladimir Merzliakov wrote: > >>Is assert(!NewSTy->isAbstract()) must pass after this line? > > > >In this case, yup. > > > I create test program and assert failed in it: > > { \2 *, sbyte * } How do I decode the \2 in this? I am creating types through this interface and I get quite a mess seen below. And this is

Hi, Is there a way to modify the string such as char a or char b? Could I use the way like "Replace an instruction with another Value" in Programm Manual? In fact, what I am interested in is string with visible expression, not all string, and I am trying to hide the orignal string by using simple way like XOR.. Is there a way to reorder the basic blocks? Thanks. Qiuyu C Source

Ok, I got home so I have more details. Here's the sample C program: ----------------- C program --------------- #include <stdio.h> int main() { printf("hello world\n"); return 0; } ------------- end C program ------------- This is compiled using llvm online demo into the following llvm code (target removed): ----------------- LLVM code -------------- deplibs

Vyacheslav, I've tracked down the change and I have a fix for you to test. The attached patch should be applied to the CVS head (version 1.132) of X86AsmPrinter.cpp in llvm/lib/Target/X86. The patch just includes MINGW targets in the same set of choices that it makes for Cygwin. Could you please try the patch and let me know if it solves your problem? If it does, I'll commit the patch.

Hi, I'm working on a CS326 compiler project, and I'm having some problems using string functions. Some LLVM programs produced are either aborting or giving incorrect results; however, if I disassemble the LLVM bytecode and recompile with GCC, everything works fine. I encountered the following error when running lli with '-force-interpreter' option: "Tried to execute an

Vyacheslav, This is the same problem that I had with Cygwin .. nearly identical. The issue was documented in PR492 if you want some background. I'm currently trying to dig up what I did to fix this in December for Cygwin and see if I can apply the same change for mingw. Reid. On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 16:39, Vyacheslav Akhmechet wrote: > Ok, I got home so I have more details. Here's the

Reid, This patch won't work for me. I compile llvm toolset with MSVC Express (hence __MINGW32__ won't be defined for me at compile time). I only try to feed the generated assembly into gcc (pretty much gnu assembler, I suppose). I don't use mingw tools at the earlier stage. However it's obvious for me how to modify the code now (just add MSVC at that line), thanks! I'll try it

----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Lattner" <sabre at nondot.org> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 6:31 PM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Recursive Types using the llvm support library > On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Vladimir Merzliakov wrote: > >>>> An example where something really simple like the

Anders Alexandersson wrote: > Hello! > > I get some odd behaviour using my structs: > > "myKernelMap" = type {int (sbyte*)*, int ()*} > "Kernel" = type {"myKernelMap"*} > > The second member ( int()* ) is a pointer to the %getchar() function. > > I want to call getchar using this function: > > int

Hello! I get some odd behaviour using my structs: "myKernelMap" = type {int (sbyte*)*, int ()*} "Kernel" = type {"myKernelMap"*} The second member ( int()* ) is a pointer to the %getchar() function. I want to call getchar using this function: int "callmyKernelgetchar_kernel"("Kernel"* "myKernel") { "PTRMAP" =