similar to: [LLVMdev] Selectively Disable Inlining for Functions

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: >> I'm currently working with an experimental analysis pass that checks for >> calls to memory allocation functions; inlining and dead code elimination >> might make the pass more stable, but we don't want to inline the calls to >> the memory allocation functions until after our analysis pass is finished. >

On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 03:32:39PM -0500, Long Fei wrote: > I am using llvm for source-to-source inlining. So I did: > > % llvm-gcc file_a.c file_b.c ... file_n.c -o file > % opt -inline -inline-threshold=1000 < file.bc | llc -march=c > outfile.c > > Can anyone tell me how llvm determines if a function should be > inlined, and what roll does

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

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]$

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 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,

There is one case where inlining/not-inlining affects correctness. A function which uses alloca() will behave differently in the two cases. You can argue one shouldn't write code like this, but it is legal. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > >> I see that you are objecting explicit inline control. >> >> The main problem is

On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Actually I feel that the current state of the art of inlining is where > register allocation has been about 10 years ago. It's pretty fine for most > things, but back then I remember writing code like "register const char *p > __asm__("%esi");" where just adding the explicit __asm__ boosted performance

On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > I see that you are objecting explicit inline control. > > The main problem is that inlining is absolutely crucial for some > "modern" programming styles. E.g. we use a huge collection of small C++ > template classes and template metaclasses, most of which have very > trivial and limited functionality (think of it

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Long Fei wrote: > Does llvm support inlining certain functions with their names specified by > the user ? If you think it will be easy to modify the source code to do this, > please give me some hint where to start with. There currently isn't a way to do this, but you could hack the InlineSimple.cpp file in lib/Transforms/IPO. -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 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

Hi, Sean: I'm sorry I lie. I didn't mean to lie. I did try to avoid making a *BIG* change to the IPO pass-ordering for now. However, when I make a minor change to populateLTOPassManager() by separating module-pass and non-module-passes, I saw quite a few performance difference, most of them are degradations. Attacking these degradations one by one in a piecemeal manner is wasting

I am using llvm for source-to-source inlining. So I did: % llvm-gcc file_a.c file_b.c ... file_n.c -o file % opt -inline -inline-threshold=1000 < file.bc | llc -march=c > outfile.c Can anyone tell me how llvm determines if a function should be inlined, and what roll does "inline-threshold" play ? (Does the example mean that if the function body has fewer than 1000 instructions,

On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: >> >>> As I've just seen that there are some things going on w.r.t the long >>> needed implementation of calling conventions, may I also ask if it's >>> possible to address inlining at the same moment (i.e. attributes

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

On Sun, 8 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: >>> but looking at the disassembly suggests that this might mainly be an issue >>> of x86 codegen, which is rather young as compared to other compilers. >> If you're testing on X86, I would be strongly suspious of the X86 backend,

Dear All, I was wondering if there is a standard way of specifying a list of functions that *should not* be inlined by the -inline pass. I'm currently working with an experimental analysis pass that checks for calls to memory allocation functions; inlining and dead code elimination might make the pass more stable, but we don't want to inline the calls to the memory allocation

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

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