similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm-gcc4: Enable various optimizations at -O1/-O2

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 700 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] llvm-gcc4: Enable various optimizations at -O1/-O2"

2008 Jan 25
1
[LLVMdev] Something about the andersens pass
I may have found a bug in the andersends pass, but before I try to strip the code down to something reasonable I'd like to make sure I'm not misunderstanding anything. This is against the current SVN head, on my Mac OS 10.5 box. 1) I'm compiling a bunch of C++ code with llvm-g++ (4.0.1). The compiled code includes the gcc 4.0.1 implementation for dynamic_cast (so it can be
2007 Apr 30
1
[LLVMdev] llvm-gcc build broken
I can't build llvm-gcc from working directories updated an hour ago. -Dave /tools/llvm-tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/g++ -c -g -DENABLE_CHECKING -DENABLE_ASSERT_CHECKING -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -fno-common -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -Wno-unused -DTARGET_NAME=\"i686-pc-linux-gnu\" -DENABLE_LLVM
2013 Sep 25
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Move Polly's execution later
Here is an update about moving Polly later. 1. Why does Polly generate incorrect code when we move Polly immediately after the loop rotating pass? It is mainly caused by a wrong polly merge block. When Polly detects a valid loop for Polyhedral transformations, it usually introduces a new basic block "polly.merge_new_and_old" after the original loop exit block. This new basic block
2013 Sep 25
3
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Move Polly's execution later
On 09/25/2013 04:55 AM, Star Tan wrote: > Here is an update about moving Polly later. Hi star tan, thanks for your report. > > 1. Why does Polly generate incorrect code when we move Polly immediately after the loop rotating pass? > > It is mainly caused by a wrong polly merge block. When Polly detects a valid loop for Polyhedral transformations, it usually introduces a new basic
2013 Sep 14
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Compile-time and Execution-time analysis for the SCEV canonicalization
Hello all, I have evaluated the compile-time and execution-time performance of Polly canonicalization passes. Details can be referred to http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity. There are four runs: pollyBasic (run 45): clang -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang LLVMPolly.so pollyNoGenSCEV (run 44): clang -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang LLVMPolly.so -mllvm -polly -mllvm -polly-codegen-scev
2013 Sep 17
4
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Compile-time and Execution-time analysis for the SCEV canonicalization
Now, we come to more evaluations on http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity I mainly care about the compile-time and execution time impact for the following cases: pBasic (run 45): clang -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so pNoGenSCEV (run 44): clang -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so -polly-codegen-scev -polly -polly-optimizer=none -polly-code-generator=none pNoGenSCEV_nocan (run 47): same option
2008 Dec 19
2
[LLVMdev] strange behaviour after extracting optimization pass code
Hi, I am expieriencing strange behaviour of llvm's optimization passes and I don't understand what I am doing wrong. Basically all I've done is extracting code for optimization of a llvm-function in a llvm-module and put it into a separate function for better readability. The original code looks like follows (and works as expected): ----------------------------- std::string
2008 Dec 19
1
[LLVMdev] strange behaviour after extracting optimization pass code
Hi, I am expieriencing strange behaviour of llvm's optimization passes and I don't understand what I am doing wrong. Basically all I've done is extracting code for optimization of a llvm-function in a llvm-module and put it into a separate function for better readability. The original code looks like follows (and works as expected): ----------------------------- std::string
2013 Apr 17
0
[LLVMdev] [polly] pass ordering
On 04/17/2013 09:04 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > Tobias Grosser wrote: >> As said before, we could probably add it in between those two passes: >> >> MPM.add(createReassociatePass()); // Reassociate expressions >> + addExtensionsToPM(EP_LoopOptimizerStart, MPM); >> MPM.add(createLoopRotatePass()); // Rotate Loop > > As this is in the middle of other
2013 Apr 17
0
[LLVMdev] [polly] pass ordering
On 04/17/2013 08:37 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > Tobias Grosser wrote: >> On 04/17/2013 05:53 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> polly is run very early and schedules the following passes before it runs: >>> >>> /// @brief Schedule a set of canonicalization passes to prepare for Polly >>> /// >>> /// The set of
2013 Apr 17
2
[LLVMdev] [polly] pass ordering
Tobias Grosser wrote: > On 04/17/2013 05:53 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > >Hi, > > > >polly is run very early and schedules the following passes before it runs: > > > >/// @brief Schedule a set of canonicalization passes to prepare for Polly > >/// > >/// The set of optimization passes was partially taken/copied from the > >/// set of default
2013 Apr 17
1
[LLVMdev] [polly] pass ordering
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> > To: "Sebastian Pop" <spop at codeaurora.org> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:45:26 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [polly] pass ordering > > On 04/17/2013 05:53 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > > Hi, > > > > polly is run very
2008 Jun 04
1
[LLVMdev] Standard output binary mode on windows
Hello, On windows, the standard output is not set to binary mode by default so all '\n' characters are replaced with '\r\n'. This is a pain for any command using stdout, like "llvm-as < input.ll > out.bc", because out.bc is then most likely corrupted. This is an old story, fixed a while ago: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=787 And here is the thread on
2012 Sep 10
2
[LLVMdev] Dead Store Elimination
Hi, Here is the result of optimization using the following passes: llvm::createBasicAliasAnalysisPass() llvm::createInstructionCombiningPass() llvm::createReassociatePass() llvm::createGVNPass() llvm::createCFGSimplificationPass() The optimized IR seems to contain what look like dead stores on %8 and %9 in basic blocks 7 and haveData. How can I get rid of them? Thanks, Vinayak define
2013 Apr 17
0
[LLVMdev] [polly] pass ordering
On 04/17/2013 05:53 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > Hi, > > polly is run very early and schedules the following passes before it runs: > > /// @brief Schedule a set of canonicalization passes to prepare for Polly > /// > /// The set of optimization passes was partially taken/copied from the > /// set of default optimization passes in LLVM. It is used to bring the code > ///
2013 Apr 17
3
[LLVMdev] [polly] pass ordering
Hi, polly is run very early and schedules the following passes before it runs: /// @brief Schedule a set of canonicalization passes to prepare for Polly /// /// The set of optimization passes was partially taken/copied from the /// set of default optimization passes in LLVM. It is used to bring the code /// into a canonical form that simplifies the analysis and optimization passes /// of Polly.
2012 Sep 10
0
[LLVMdev] Dead Store Elimination
Hi Vinayak, > Here is the result of optimization using the following passes: > > llvm::createBasicAliasAnalysisPass() > llvm::createInstructionCombiningPass() > llvm::createReassociatePass() > llvm::createGVNPass() > llvm::createCFGSimplificationPass() > you should run the mem2reg pass too, and first. > ; <label>:7 ; preds =
2013 Jan 29
0
[LLVMdev] Running a Local Buildbot
Hello We are migrating from 2.9 to 3.2 Here is some code that does not compile any more llvm::PassManager *pm; llvm::FunctionPassManager *fpm; module = llvm::ParseBitcodeFile(mb,context,&err_str); if (!module) { error() <<"Failed to load module from bitcode file: " <<err_str <<endl; exit(1); } pm = new PassManager();
2008 Dec 19
0
[LLVMdev] strange behaviour after extracting optimization pass code
On 2008-12-19, at 06:59, Ralf Karrenberg wrote: > I am expieriencing strange behaviour of llvm's optimization passes > and I don't understand what I am doing wrong. > Basically all I've done is extracting code for optimization of a > llvm-function in a llvm-module and put it into a separate function > for better readability. The original code looks like follows
2009 Mar 16
0
[LLVMdev] Strange LLVM Crash
This is what I have so far: // Add optimization passes to the function passes s_pFunctionPasses->add(new llvm::TargetData(s_pModule)); s_pFunctionPasses->add(llvm::createCFGSimplificationPass()); s_pFunctionPasses->add(llvm::createPromoteMemoryToRegisterPass()); s_pFunctionPasses->add(llvm::createConstantPropagationPass());