similar to: [LLVMdev] link time optimization doc

Devang, Wonderful! Thanks for explaining this, it really helps. I took the liberty of fixing a few grammatical errors and some HTML usage/style things. No significant change to the content was made. Reid. On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 11:23 -0700, Devang Patel wrote: > Hi All, > > I have installed LinkTimeOptimization.html document in doc directory > to describe LTO interface. >

Hi, Op 13-aug-03, om 19:35 heeft Chris Lattner het volgende geschreven: > On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Devang Patel wrote: >> I have installed LinkTimeOptimization.html document in doc >> directory to describe LTO interface. > > Here's a link: :) > http://llvm.org/docs/LinkTimeOptimization.html Does the LTO-interface function already, or is functionality currently

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Devang Patel wrote: > I have installed LinkTimeOptimization.html document in doc directory to > describe LTO interface. Here's a link: :) http://llvm.org/docs/LinkTimeOptimization.html -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/

On Jan 27, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Hendrix_ at gmx.net wrote: > OK, I am looking for "LTO"/global optimization. So the function definition will remain "somewhere else" (externally), and the optimizer will find in some other module to possibly inline it later on. > > I am planning to concat all the *.ll (eg "link" the files) and pass them to the

On Aug 14, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Bram Adams wrote: > Hi, > > Op 13-aug-03, om 19:35 heeft Chris Lattner het volgende geschreven: > >> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Devang Patel wrote: >>> I have installed LinkTimeOptimization.html document in doc >>> directory to describe LTO interface. >> >> Here's a link: :) >>

On 27.01.2011, at 21:12, Devang Patel wrote: > > On Jan 27, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Hendrix_ at gmx.net wrote: > >> OK, I am looking for "LTO"/global optimization. So the function definition will remain "somewhere else" (externally), and the optimizer will find in some other module to possibly inline it later on. >> >> I am planning to concat all the

On Jan 27, 2011, at 12:37 PM, Hendrix_ at gmx.net wrote: > > On 27.01.2011, at 21:12, Devang Patel wrote: > >> >> On Jan 27, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Hendrix_ at gmx.net wrote: >> >>> OK, I am looking for "LTO"/global optimization. So the function definition will remain "somewhere else" (externally), and the optimizer will find in some other

On 26.01.2011, at 04:39, John McCall wrote: > On Jan 24, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Hendrix_ at gmx.net wrote: >> I was using "clang -O3 -S -emit-llvm" got some very optimized output. >> >> Then I did "clang -S -emit-llvm" (without optimization) and wanted to optimized the code in a >> separate pass. The llvm program "opt" did not do anything.

On 27.01.2011, at 21:12, Devang Patel wrote: > > On Jan 27, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Hendrix_ at gmx.net wrote: > >> OK, I am looking for "LTO"/global optimization. So the function definition will remain "somewhere else" (externally), and the optimizer will find in some other module to possibly inline it later on. >> >> I am planning to concat all the

Hi folks, I've got an idea for something I may be able to do as a Link-Time- Optimization pass, but I can't seem to find how LTO gets used. My crude approach has been to compile LLVM for debugging, and then run gdb on llvm-ld with -O5 and two .bc files, trying to catch LTO in action. I've also scanned the compiled tools, and none of them appear to use the symbol

Hi, Is there a tutorial on how to get started with writing link-time optimization passes? The documentation at http://www.llvm.org/docs/LinkTimeOptimization.html explains the design of the LTO interface, but does not explain where to start writing code. Would my pass go inside libLTO.a or is it separate from libLTO.a? What I would like to be able to do is traverse through the entire

Hi all! I played around with the LLVM LTO example(https://llvm.org/docs/LinkTimeOptimization.html#example-of-link-time-optimization), but got some questions. As the document says, the function foo4 should be removed. However, under my test, function foo4 is not removed. I have tried both gnu ld with LLVMgold.so and lld, neither of them removes function foo4. I compile and run the example as

> > > Is there a reason why LLVM's link-time optimization won't work for you? > > http://llvm.org/docs/GoldPlugin.html > http://llvm.org/docs/LinkTimeOptimization.html > > Well the primary motivation to move to LLVM is licensing which is why we also ditched binutils since we can't package gcc for iOS due to the GPL. So in the end the gold plugin wouldn't

On Apr 18, 2011, at 6:46 AM, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > Hi all, > > we're working on compile-time instrumentation for ThreadSanitizer (a > data race detector, see http://code.google.com/p/data-race-test and > http://code.google.com/p/data-race-test/wiki/CompileTimeInstrumentation), > which is implemented as an opt plugin that is ran for each client > C/C++ module we

The documentation you're looking for is: http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html If you're doing an optimization that runs at link-time, you'll probably be writing a ModulePass. You can run any pass at any time over any bitcode file with 'opt -mypass file.bc'. If you want to add it to the list of passes that run when linking via libLTO or llvm-ld, you can add it to

I updated DwarfDebug to use section offset, instead of hard coding 0, to handle LTO properly. r107202. Thanks for brining this up. - Devang On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Devang Patel <devang.patel at gmail.com> wrote: > DW_AT_stmt_list attribute's value is a section offset to the line no > info for current compilation unit. If there is only one  compilation > unit

Thanks Nick. I've been pursuing Gao's technique but can't seem to get opt to remove obviously dead code from even the following trivial example: int mult(int a, int b){ return a*b; } int main(void){ return 0; } While mult is never called it still is not removed. I just can't seem to get opt to understand it's seeing the whole program so it can remove this

Here is a proposal that I mentioned sometime ago. Any thoughts,comments or suggestions on this proposal would be appreciated. - Devang // = = =---------------------------------------------------------------------- ===// // Function Notes (or Traits) // = = =---------------------------------------------------------------------- ===// This document describes the

On Aug 25, 2008, at 3:24 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > > On Aug 22, 2008, at 4:40 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > >> The LLVM passes are responsible to take appropriate actions based >> on Function >> Notes associated with function definition. For example, >> >> define void @fn1() notes("opt-size=1") { ... } >> >> The function fn1() is being

On 7/27/2010 12:40 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Chuck Zhao<czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote: >> LLVM (2.7 release version) provides 2 implementations for inlining >> function callsites: >> >> - InlineSimple.cpp (-inline): inline simple callsites >> according to its cost analysis >> - InlineAlways.cpp