Displaying 20 results from an estimated 12000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] simple question:basic blocks avg size"
2005 Apr 07
1
[LLVMdev] Questions !!
Thanks for the reply,
Actually I m aiming towards determining two values:
- number of basic blocks in a program
For this I have used Statistic facility provided in llvm and increasing the counter for each basic block for each function.but for some reason , I m getting different number everytime !!
Is Statistic is the right way to do it ?
- Average basic block size in a program ( in bytes)
2005 Apr 08
2
[LLVMdev] Questions !!
Thanks a lot Chris.
Regarding basic block size I wish to calculate both:
- The number of bytecode bytes
- The number of machine code bytes for some target?
TS
Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Tanu Sharma wrote:
> Thanks for the reply,
>
> Actually I m aiming towards determining two values:
>
> - number of basic blocks in a program For
2004 Dec 14
0
[LLVMdev] Randomizing Basic Blocks ?
Hello,
I have been trying to randomize the basic blocks of a program in memory and disk , keeping the control flow intact.
Is there any easy way provided in llvm to achieve that?
any other suggestions?
Thanks
Tanu
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-------------- next part
2005 Feb 17
4
[LLVMdev] Branching to Entry block
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Tanu Sharma wrote:
> I created a new block and inserted it into the present basic block list
> , but I get this error:
>
> opt: BasicBlock.cpp:83: virtual llvm::BasicBlock::~BasicBlock(): Assertion `getParent() == 0 && "BasicBlock still linked into the program!"' failed.
>
> The program completes its task and i get this in the end. I am
2005 Feb 15
2
[LLVMdev] Entry block (Randomisation)
Tanu Sharma wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In an attempt to randomise the basic blocks in a function, is it
> possible that I can randomise the entry block as well? And maybe insert
> some instructions in the pass to call entry block while running the
> program ?
>
> Is it feasible?
>
> What does entry block consist of ?
The entry block, by definition, is the first basic
2005 Feb 17
0
[LLVMdev] Branching to Entry block
Thanks a lot for replying...but I am not doing any deleting or removing node ...I am trying to insert a "new" entry node in an existing list.
In another reply I understood (also mentioned on the site) that no other block can branch to the entry block.
How do I achieve this ? Is it feasible?Let me know if there is any example.
Thanks again,
Tanu
Chris Lattner <sabre at
2005 Apr 25
2
[LLVMdev] Compilation without optimization
Thanks for the reply.
I wish to compile without optimizations ( the option being turned off ) but still generate bytecode file.
Options -S , -c removes optimizations but I also need .bc file to experiment and use further.
How should I do it?
Thanks
-TS
Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Tanu Sharma wrote:
> I got very useful replies from dev list
2005 Jun 02
4
[LLVMdev] Randomizing Functions & Global variables
I would try that ..Thanks
Another thing that I want to do is to randomize functions within a program (or file ), whatever is easier to do in llvm .Also please tell me how can I randomize global variables ?
Thanks
TS
Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2005, Tanu Sharma wrote:
> I have been trying to compile the SPEC benchmark but have failed even
> after
2005 Apr 26
1
[LLVMdev] Compilation without optimization
Thanks !!
But if i generate a .bc file like this and then run my pass over it like this :
opt -load /home/llvm-cvs/llvm/Debug/lib/LLVMHello.so -hello <helloprog.bc> class_prog.bc
Will the new .bc file (class_prog.bc) be also without optimizations ?opt also does some optimizations.Can I control them ?
Thanks
Tanu
Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005,
2005 Mar 09
2
[LLVMdev] Question
This is exactly what i m trying :
opt -load /home/tsharma/ankur/llvm/Debug/lib/LLVMHello.so -hello <helloprog.bc> /dev/null
Tanu
Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Tanu Sharma wrote:
> I wrote a pass which randomizes basic blocks and insert new block.But
> when i run another pass over it which simply lists all basic blocks I
> don't get
2005 Apr 25
0
[LLVMdev] Compilation without optimization
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Tanu Sharma wrote:
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> I wish to compile without optimizations ( the option being turned off )
> but still generate bytecode file.
>
> Options -S , -c removes optimizations but I also need .bc file to
> experiment and use further.
Passing "-Wa,-disable-opt -Wl,-disable-opt" will disable *all* cleanup and
optimizations
2005 Feb 27
2
[LLVMdev] Measuring performance overhead
On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 22:34 -0600, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005, Tanu Sharma wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the reply :-)
> > I am actually looking for ways to determine "size" of code segment when the program is in native code.
> > Any suggestions to do that ?
>
> Compile it with llvm to a native .o or .exe file, then run 'size' on it?
>
2005 Feb 17
0
[LLVMdev] Branching to Entry block
Thanks a lot for replying.
I have another query.
If branching to the entry block is not legal in llvm how should I be able to create a new entry block for any existing list?
I created a new block and inserted it into the present basic block list , but I get this error:
opt: BasicBlock.cpp:83: virtual llvm::BasicBlock::~BasicBlock(): Assertion `getParent() == 0 && "BasicBlock
2004 Nov 30
4
[LLVMdev] Trouble using llvm tools
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Tanu Sharma wrote:
> I have trouble using the llvm tools.Some of the errors are :
>
> $ llvm-dis prog.bc
> $ llvm-dis: Invalid Top Level Block Length! Type:1, Size:456 (Vers=0, Pos=12)
Can you explain how you generated this bytecode file? It looks corrupted
or something. Also, can you send the actual bytecode file itself?
Thanks!
-Chris
>
2005 Feb 27
2
[LLVMdev] Measuring performance overhead
Thanks for the reply :-)
I am actually looking for ways to determine "size" of code segment when the program is in native code.
Any suggestions to do that ?
Tanu
Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Tanu Sharma wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> I have written a pass and wishes to measure its performance overhead
> after running it over a
2005 Sep 04
2
[LLVMdev] Doubt
I have a doubt.
This is an excerpt of the raw report I get after running Spec benchmarks through llvm-test.I am trying to calculate the program execution time.Does the output result in bold corresponds to "lli time" in Makefile.spec ? I am not interested in llc, jit or cbe.I simply need the normal bytecode and native code execution times after running my pass over them.I have modified
2005 Apr 23
1
[LLVMdev] Error while compiling .cpp
Thanks a lot for replying.
I would check my system gcc configuration.
I got very useful replies from dev list regarding my earlier question but yet not able to determine block size. That I want in total size of a block in a function in bytes and not just the number of instructions.LLVM Tool gives most of the information e.g function bytes etc....but not individual block.
Thanks
Tanu
Chris
2004 Nov 30
0
[LLVMdev] Trouble using llvm tools
Thanks for replying,
Yes, I think too that the bytecode file is corrupted.
This is the file :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 May 31
4
[LLVMdev] Error while compiling spec benchmark
Hello,
I have been trying to compile the SPEC benchmark but have failed even after several attempts.The first error I get while trying to run is :
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Error loading program '../00000002/gzip_base.x86_linux.bc': Can't open file: ../00000002/gzip_base.x86_linux.bc
2005 Sep 05
0
[LLVMdev] Doubt
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Tanu Sharma wrote:
>
> I have a doubt.
>
> This is an excerpt of the raw report I get after running Spec benchmarks
> through llvm-test.I am trying to calculate the program execution
> time.Does the output result in bold corresponds to "lli time" in
> Makefile.spec ? I am not interested in llc, jit or cbe.I simply need the
> normal