similar to: [LLVMdev] call graph

Hello. I'm new to LLVM, so I apologize if this is a basic question. I've used llvm-gcc to produce an LLVM assembly file (-S) as well as the bytecode file. I then used 'analyze -print-cfg' on the bytecode and realized that some optimizations have been applied against the corresponding assembly file. If I understand the operations, the emitted assembly file has no optimizations,

First, thanks to those who have responded to my earlier pleas for help. You have either directly or indirectly helped me find the answers I needed. I'm slowly getting up to speed with LLVM. Now I have 2 more questions. 1) I'm using LLVM 1.8a with llvm-gcc3. I'm trying to compile firefox (with regular gcc and make) while using LLVM to automatically instrument one source file

Jerry Hom wrote: I haven't seen anyone answer this question yet, so I'll take a crack at it: > First, thanks to those who have responded to my earlier pleas for > help. You have either directly or indirectly helped me find the > answers I needed. I'm slowly getting up to speed with LLVM. Now I > have 2 more questions. > > 1) I'm using LLVM 1.8a with

By using analyze -stats -instcounts <bytecode> I can get the total number of instructions but I want to extract instruction level parallelism . That is I want to know number of add instruction that can be executed in parallel, similarly for multiply ... This would give me an idea what is upper limit of adders ( and multipliers )should be there in my hardware. Any kind of help would be

I did this short experiment: ggreif at my [!297] cd /home/ggreif/llvm ggreif at my [!298] find . -name "*.cpp" | xargs grep bytecode | wc -l 143 I guess these are a quick prey for perl's in-place replace. But wait! There are more: ggreif at my [!299] find . -name "*.cpp" | xargs grep -i bytecode | wc -l 291 probably all of the rest is "Bytecode"

On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 17:13, Chris Lattner wrote: > > The point here is that XPL needs to keep track of what a given variable > > represents at the source level. If the compiler sees a map that is > > initially small it might represent it in LLVM assembly as a vector of > > pairs. Later on, it gets optimized into being a hash table. In order to > > do that and keep

> The point here is that XPL needs to keep track of what a given variable > represents at the source level. If the compiler sees a map that is > initially small it might represent it in LLVM assembly as a vector of > pairs. Later on, it gets optimized into being a hash table. In order to > do that and keep track of things, I need to know that the vector of > pairs is

Hello, I am Ramon Garcia Fernandez. My interest in LLVM is to develop an interface for Java virtual machine bytecodes, so that Java programs can be run under LLVM. You may ask why not using the Java virtual machine. Although it may be improved, there are some misfeatures in it. This is what I have learned. It makes the communication with native code too expensive. Passing an array from native to

Hi, I wanted to install llvm 1.8 and the frontend at my MacBook Pro but I think the gcc4 frontend doesn't work (gcc3 and llvm 1.8 works fine on my old ppc-based mac). There are no fixheaders-script and no include directories ... Are there working gcc 4 binaries? Did I miss some informations on the llvm-webpage? Or do I have to build my own gcc frontend? Thank you Nico

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, John T. Criswell wrote: >>> I recommend that you stick with the release_19 branch of both llvm and >>> llvm-poolalloc. I and others are actively using these branches, so >>> llvm-poolalloc bug fixes will most likely be made to this branch in >>> addition to mainline CVS for the forseeable future. The release_19 >>> branch of

Hi, I want to implement a new intrinsic in llvm that will denote a parallel section within a function. I followed the documentation for extending llvm (http://llvm.org/docs/ExtendingLLVM.html) but there is something about the working mechanism that is not clear for me. 1. Why do we have to add support for the C backend? Is this only necessary to transform the llvm assembly (bytecode) into C code

Hi there, I am trying to JIT a rather big wasm bytecode program to x86 native code and running into this JIT compilation time issue. In the first stage, I use MCJIT to translate wasm bytecode to a single LLVM IR Module which ends up with 927 functions. Then it took a pretty long time to apply several optimization passes to this big IR module and finally generate x86 code. What should I do to

Hi LLVM, I'm currently setting up some tools to investigate the influence of the order of optimization passes on the performance of compiled programs -nothing exceptional here. I noticed something inconvenient with opt, namely that splitting a call does not always give the same output: % llvm-stress > stress.ll % opt -dse -verify -dce stress.ll -o stress-1.bc % opt -dse stress.ll |

Hi Eli, Unfortunately the differences remain, I do not observe a significant change in the output besides the fact that it's random. I noticed that running opt without options on the random file changes the order of references in the predecessors of basic blocks (sample below). Further invocations of opt are idempotent. I don't know of this information is stored in the bytecode file

Hello everybody, So I am having some problems with llvm. When I've tried a lot of times to run and re-install the llvm, but the same error appears, so: esbox at embedded2i:~/llvm/projects/teste$ llvm-gcc hello.c -o hello esbox at embedded2i:~/llvm/projects/teste$ ls hello hello.c esbox at embedded2i:~/llvm/projects/teste$ ./hello Hello World esbox at

Hi, On Nov 13, 2006, at 9:17 PM, Tanya M. Lattner wrote: > I assume you have an Mac with an Intel processor. Yes. Sorry, I forgot to mentioned it in the mailbody. > Download this: > http://llvm.org/releases/1.8/llvm-gcc4-1.8-x86-darwin.tar.gz I think that is the same tarball I used before. > Let me know if that doesn't work. Again: there is no fixheader-script like you

>> I assume you have an Mac with an Intel processor. > > Yes. Sorry, I forgot to mentioned it in the mailbody. > >> Download this: >> http://llvm.org/releases/1.8/llvm-gcc4-1.8-x86-darwin.tar.gz > > I think that is the same tarball I used before. Ok. I'm confused. Do you want llvm-gcc3 or llvm-gcc4? The tarball above is a binary for llvm-gcc4 for Mac x86. You

Tanya Lattner wrote: > Many of you are probably wondering about the status of the 2.3 > release. Unfortunately, this release has been very difficult and the > list of regressions very high. The list has finally dwindled down to > the following regressions: > > Linux/x86: > SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/fftbench [ JIT Codegen, JIT] Increasing ulimit to 230 Mb (from

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

John Criswell wrote: > Okay. As Rob has already said, it sounds like you want to write an LLVM > pass that adds global variables and instructions to a program. So, to > state it explicitly, you want to: > > 1) Compile the program that you want to instrument to LLVM bytecode > using llvm-gcc. > 2) Use an LLVM pass that you write to instrument the program. > 3) Use