similar to: [LLVMdev] Alias Analyses

Hi, LLVM dev team: Thanks for your suggestion, I have done the experiment to compare the two pointer analysis(Andersen and Steensgaard) methods in LLVM, but the result was unexpected. In each test, I compare these two methods using same optimization; There are several tests, each with a different optimization. The benchmark is all the 11 C programs in CINT2000 of SPEC. In all the tests, I found

Hi, LLVM dev team: Thanks for your suggestion, I have done the experiment to compare the two pointer analysis(Andersen and Steensgaard) methods in LLVM, but the result was unexpected. In each test, I compare these two methods using same optimization; There are several tests, each with a different optimization. The benchmark is all the 11 C programs in CINT2000 of SPEC. In all the tests, I found

On 10/7/11 11:56 PM, Jiesheng Wei wrote: > Hi, > > This is Jiesheng Wei from UBC. Now I am working on a project with LLVM > and I want to use steensgaard alias analysis tool. I saw on the website > that steensgaard analysis is available for LLVM 2.9 and it is under > poolalloc/ directory. I downloaded several versions but none of them is > compatible with LLVM 2.9. Can you

Hi, This is Jiesheng Wei from UBC. Now I am working on a project with LLVM and I want to use steensgaard alias analysis tool. I saw on the website that steensgaard analysis is available for LLVM 2.9 and it is under poolalloc/ directory. I downloaded several versions but none of them is compatible with LLVM 2.9. Can you please tell me which version of poolalloc is for LLVM 2.9? Thanks, Jiesheng

聪明陈 wrote: > Hi LLVM dev team: > I am now doing an experiment to comparing Steensgaard-style and > Andersen-style pointer analysis on LLVM. Since steensgaard pointer > analysis is in module "poolalloc", so I installed poolalloc release > 2.6 on my machine(intel X86_64 RedHatEnterpriseLinux 5.1, gcc-4.2.4), > two directories "include" and "lib" were

Hi LLVM dev team: I am now doing an experiment to comparing Steensgaard-style and Andersen-style pointer analysis on LLVM. Since steensgaard pointer analysis is in module "poolalloc", so I installed poolalloc release 2.6 on my machine(intel X86_64 RedHatEnterpriseLinux 5.1, gcc-4.2.4), two directories "include" and "lib" were created after installation but no

On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 13:29 -0700, Wei Jiang wrote: > hi, > The llvm alias analysis doc mentioned that llvm have various alias > analysis passes, e.g. steens-aa; but I can't find it in llvm 2.0. Are > these passes obsoleted? Thanks. I think that Steensgaard was part of the data structure analysis which has been moved out of llvm. We currently have -basicaa, -globalsmodref-aa,

Thanks, that's a lot more like the output I was expecting. But, I'm now wondering if I'm doing something wrong because the output confuses me. When run on the program: int main() { int a = 5; int* b = &a; int* c = &a; return *b; } I would expect to see either b may alias c or b must alias c. But, it doesn't even appear in the list. Furthermore, I would expect

Hi! I'm currently working on developing a new technique for alias analysis and wish to know how to compare it's results to the results that LLVM gets. The algorithm I have operates on LLVM assembly (I wrote the analysis in Haskell, so unfortunately I can't embed it into LLVM very easily). I tried using the option to print alias sets, but I'm not quite sure how to interpret the

On Thu, April 3, 2008 7:33 pm, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Apr 3, 2008, at 1:00 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: >> * BasicAliasAnalysis, the default AliasAnalysis implementation, >> doesn't >> understand lowered GEPs, integer arithmetic, or PHIs, and the >> regular codegen process involves passes that lower GEPs. > > Sure. > >> One way to solve this is to use

Hi there, I am trying to understand how AliasAnalysis works out in LLVM. I used the following simple test-case (test4.c): -- void test() { int *jj, *kk; int aa = 100; jj = &aa; *jj = 300; } int main() { test(); return 0; } -- Then I did "llvm-gcc -emit-llvm -c -o test4.bc test4.c" to get bc. I tried the following 2 ways to get what I expect to get as

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Ben Chambers wrote: > I guess what confuses me is that it doesn't seem like it was able to > figure out that *b = a. Am I looking at this wrong? Is there a more > accurate way of getting the alias information out of the pass? The answer is to not look at the alias sets. I'd suggest looking at the raw results of alias queries. To do this, use the -aa-eval

hi, The llvm alias analysis doc mentioned that llvm have various alias analysis passes, e.g. steens-aa; but I can't find it in llvm 2.0. Are these passes obsoleted? Thanks. -Wei Jiang -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20070321/5cb1f1ca/attachment.html>

On Aug 26, 2009, at 6:40 PM, Max Stonebraker wrote: > Hello, > > Does the LLVM Andersens alias analysis handle function pointers > precisely? I ran it and it looks like it says every function points > points to the universal set. Is this what I should expect? Hi Max, I don't know the answer offhand but please keep in mind that the current andersen's pass has many

> Yes. It's almost all up to the front-end. Find the place in clang > where it emits the "any pointer" metadata, and implement something > better. Dan, Thanks for replying! I have read the TBAA code in the front-end of clang. I did consider to extend it to handle more complicated pointer cases. For example, assigning different TBAA names to pointers pointing to different

Hi, I am using LLVM 2.4 on a Linux RHEL5 machine. I was trying to figure out how the chaining of the alias analysis passes works in LLVM. Here are the command I used to test the chaining part. 1. ./opt hello_world_1_nest_func.bc -o hello_world_1_nest_func_AA.bc -no-aa -anders-aa -licm Result: Anderson's AA and No Alias Analysis both are called. 2. ./opt hello_world_1_nest_func.bc -o

Hi Chris, I took a haste look at the "Points-to Analysis in Almost Linear Time" by Steens , your PHD thesis and SteensGaard.cpp in LLVM this afternoon. So I think: 1. Actually the basic algorithm described originally by SteensGaard does not provide MOD/REF information for functions. 2. The context insensitive part of Data Structure Analysis (LocalAnalysis) can be deemed as an

Thanks for the reply. Would you happen to know whether there a global alias analysis written for LLVM that is more robust? Is the Steensgaard pass any more reliable? Max On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > At one point it handled function pointers. > As chris says, it's buggy and probably broken. > Some function pointers also do

On 2009-06-29 11:16, Wenzhi Tao wrote: > Hi, all > > According to the document "LLVM Alias Analysis Infrastructure", I > evaluated the AA performance by using the paramenters '-basicaa -ds-aa > -anders-aa'. The source code 'test.c' is listed as follow: > [...] > The whole process: > > llvm-gcc -emit-llvm -O0 -c test.c -o test.bc > > opt

Hi Ambika, > to compile it to bitcode I give the following command : > > llvm-gcc -emit-llvm -c -o s.bc s.c > > and then I run different alias analysis passes like -anders-aa, -basicaa > using following: > > opt -anders-aa -aa-eval -print-all-alias-modref-info s.bc alias analysis will work poorly if you don't run any optimizers. The alias analysis passes