similar to: [LLVMdev] Selectively Disable Inlining for Functions

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, John Criswell wrote: > I was wondering if there is a standard way of specifying a list of functions > that *should not* be inlined by the -inline pass. Nope, but you could hack something into gccas/gccld if you want. Of course, you can disable inlining completely with the -disable-inlining flag. > I'm currently working with an experimental analysis pass that

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 Mar 6, 2006, at 4:05 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, John Criswell wrote: >> I was wondering if there is a standard way of specifying a list of >> functions that *should not* be inlined by the -inline pass. > > Nope, but you could hack something into gccas/gccld if you want. > Of course, you can disable inlining completely with the -disable- >

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,

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]$

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

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

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Dale Johannesen wrote: > The defined gcc interface for this is -fno-builtin. It seems not be > to be working in llvm-gcc, however. Please file a reduced testcase in bugzilla, -Chris > >> 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

On Feb 21, 2008, at 5:38 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Dale Johannesen wrote: >> The defined gcc interface for this is -fno-builtin. It seems not be >> to be working in llvm-gcc, however. > > Please file a reduced testcase in bugzilla, > > -Chris Er, well, now that I've looked at the correct output files, it is actually working. >>> I

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Vikram S. Adve wrote: > Changing the heuristics directly would have to be a custom change (i.e., > couldn't be checked in). Is there a way for a client pass or tool to > influence the heuristics? If not, does it make sense to add such a > mechanism? To be clear, I'll restate my position here, then follow up with more specifics of such a mechanism to

Vikram S. Adve wrote: Hmmm. It seems the discussion has grown a little bit larger than I had intended. :) Basically what I think would be useful is an option to the inliner that gives it a list of functions to skip when inlining. My argument for this is that we have several transformations now that search for calls to specific functions; if those functions are inlined, the transform pass

> 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: "

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 devels, 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. 2. If i am not wrong there is no tool, which integrates all steps: llvmgcc->opt->llc into something like llcc (and

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

On Mar 15, 2006, at 3:27 PM, John Criswell wrote: > Vikram S. Adve wrote: > > Hmmm. It seems the discussion has grown a little bit larger than I > had intended. > :) > > Basically what I think would be useful is an option to the inliner > that gives it a list of functions to skip when inlining. My > argument for this is that we have several transformations now

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

Cyrille Mescam wrote: > Morning, > > I would like to know if you received my mail with the assembly code > you wanted. > > It not, i'll send it again to you. > > Thanks for your help. > > Regards. > > Cyrille > I've looked into the files you sent me, and it seems that the problem is occuring due to the C library simplication pass (which is run

The defined gcc interface for this is -fno-builtin. It seems not be to be working in llvm-gcc, however. On Feb 20, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Cristina Cifuentes wrote: > 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