similar to: [LLVMdev] Need help with bugpoint for codegen problem

Hi, I've been thinking about how to keep the line number with the llvm transform/Analysis passes. Basically, I agree with Chris's notes ( http://www.nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/DebugInfoImprovements.txt), and I will follow his way to turn on the line number information when optimization enabled. Here is a detailed proposal: 1. Introduction At the time of this writing, LLVM's

A On 3/21/06, Michael McCracken <michael.mccracken at gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/21/06, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Michael McCracken wrote: > > > > > Hi, I'm trying to access an analysis pass from the Inliner pass, and > > > I'm having a lot of trouble getting that to work - I can verify that > >

On 3/21/06, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Michael McCracken wrote: > > > Hi, I'm trying to access an analysis pass from the Inliner pass, and > > I'm having a lot of trouble getting that to work - I can verify that > > my pass is loaded and run (it is a dynamically loaded pass that is > > part of an analysisgroup),

instcombine doesn't seem to be doing it. From my testing it seems to only occur when I use -indvars after a long string of commands. For example: llvm-as < test_fc_27.ll | opt -preverify -domtree -verify -lowersetjmp -raiseallocs -simplifycfg -domtree -domfrontier -mem2reg -globalopt -globaldce -ipconstprop -deadargelim -instcombine -simplifycfg -ba siccg -prune-eh -inline

Hi all, I would like to know which optimization passes are performed at -O2 by opt. So I used following command: llvm-as < /dev/null | opt -O2 -std-compile-opts -disable-output -debug-pass=Arguments I've got following output for LLVM opt 2.9: Pass Arguments: -no-aa -tbaa -basicaa -simplifycfg -domtree -scalarrepl -early-cse Pass Arguments: -targetlibinfo -no-aa -tbaa -basicaa

I've developed a working LLVM back-end (based on LLVM 2.6) for a custom architecture with its own tool chain. This tool chain creates stand-alone programs from a single assembly. We used to use GCC, which supported producing a single machine assembly from multiple source files. I modified Clang to accept the architecture, but discovered that clang-cc (or the Clang Tool subclass inside Clang)

Mark Muir wrote: > I've developed a working LLVM back-end (based on LLVM 2.6) for a custom architecture with its own tool chain. This tool chain creates stand-alone programs from a single assembly. We used to use GCC, which supported producing a single machine assembly from multiple source files. > > I modified Clang to accept the architecture, but discovered that clang-cc (or the

We used to have an LLVM-IR pass did tail duplication (http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/tags/RELEASE_29/final/lib/Transforms/Scalar/TailDuplication.cpp) It was not used and went away with 3.0. The documentation is out of date. commit f940a1a869b4fe6f857e7fd8aeb97e7b7e9b390e Author: Rafael Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> Date: Tue Aug 30 23:03:45 2011 +0000 Remove the

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Michael McCracken wrote: > Hi, I'm trying to access an analysis pass from the Inliner pass, and > I'm having a lot of trouble getting that to work - I can verify that > my pass is loaded and run (it is a dynamically loaded pass that is > part of an analysisgroup), however, when I access it using > getAnalysis<> from within Inliner::runOnSCC, I am

Hi, I'm trying to access an analysis pass from the Inliner pass, and I'm having a lot of trouble getting that to work - I can verify that my pass is loaded and run (it is a dynamically loaded pass that is part of an analysisgroup), however, when I access it using getAnalysis<> from within Inliner::runOnSCC, I am instead getting the default, dummy version of my analysis, which should

I'm reading up on LLVM's implementation of tail duplication and the description is confusing: http://llvm.org/docs/Passes.html -tailduplicate: Tail Duplication This pass performs a limited form of tail duplication, intended to simplify CFGs by removing some unconditional branches. This pass is necessary to straighten out loops created by the C front-end, but also is capable of

Which transformation passes are 'safe', meaning it does not worsens the effectiveness of a later pass or the generated code? I imagine all passes which either removes data or add attributes are included in this list, plus some simplification passes: -adce -argpromotion -constmerge -constprop -deadargelim -dse -functionattrs -globaldce -globalopt -gvn -instcombine -internalize

On Dec 7, 2007, at 1:43 AM, Wojciech Matyjewicz wrote: > Recently, I was looking into the bug #1227. I wanted to check if > reordering optimization passes could solve it. To start with, I > tried to > reproduce the output of llvm-g++ -O3 using the combination of llvm-g++ > -O0 and opt with the appropriate passes. However, I was unable to. I > use > SVN versions of llvm and

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 4, 2008, at 8:58 AM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > > What optimization pass promotes 32 bit math operations to 64 bit operations > so I can disable it? I have code that works fine with optimizations turned > off but fails with it turned on because of this stage. > > > Do you have a

The quoted command line prints an error. 129 gally> gccld -debug-pass=Arguments < /dev/null -o - > /dev/null Not enough positional command line arguments specified! Must specify at least 1 positional arguments: See: gccld --help Instead, use: 126 gally> as < /dev/null > null.bc 127 gally> gccld -debug-pass=Arguments null.bc Pass Arguments: -constmerge -funcresolve

Which transformation passes are 'safe', meaning it does not worsens the effectiveness of a later pass or the generated code? I imagine all passes which either removes data or add attributes are included in this list, plus some simplification passes: -adce -argpromotion -constmerge -constprop -deadargelim -dse -functionattrs -globaldce -globalopt -gvn -instcombine -internalize

Hi, Recently, I was looking into the bug #1227. I wanted to check if reordering optimization passes could solve it. To start with, I tried to reproduce the output of llvm-g++ -O3 using the combination of llvm-g++ -O0 and opt with the appropriate passes. However, I was unable to. I use SVN versions of llvm and llvm-gcc-4.2. First, I compile example.cpp (attached; taken from the bug #1227) with: $

Hi all again, llvm is failing the 2006-11-30-NoCompileUnit and 2006-11-30-Pubnames tests on me. -m32 and --disable-multilib didn't change the outcome. Did I get the command wrong? I tried jo at kurier:~/Delta/llvm/test$ CFLAGS=--multilib make check See below for a transcript of the failed check. What next? Regards, Jo -- snip -- jo at kurier:~/Delta/llvm/test$ make check llvm[0]:

%TCDef = type { [16 x ubyte], [16 x ubyte], [16 x ubyte], [16 x ubyte], [64 x ubyte], ushort, %anonymous.5, %anonymous.5, %anonymous.5, uint, uint, uint, ushort, uint, uint, uint, uint } %anonymous.5 = type { ubyte, ubyte, ubyte, ubyte } I have a parser that reads LL files but doesn't handle forward references to structure types. I've been using 1.9 for quite a while and have just now

Does anyone have experience to compile Linux kernel in LLVM-2.6? I am working on a C/C++ race detection framework and want to test in large applications. But I do have a lot of errors while compiling Linux kernel 2.6.3 using LLVM-2.6. Actually, I only need to get the .bc bitcode file. Anyboy does similar work before? Which Linux kernel version is used and any skills? Thanks. Lei /****** * Lei