similar to: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] gprof needs symbols

On May 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On May 7, 2009, at 6:24 PM, Mike Stump wrote: >> I'm toying with building with -mdynamic-no-pic, but for this to work, >> the shared library bits in llvm can't be built with that flag. > > Hi Mike, > > If you're doing this for Clang's benefit, No, not really, I'm doing it for the general benefit of

On May 8, 2009, at 12:58 PM, Mike Stump wrote: >> I think the best thing to do >> is to compile LLVM PIC (the default) and then build the clang front- >> end pieces with -mdynamic-no-pic. Does this work for you? > > The proposed patch is more general that that. It avoids the flag, > when it is known it can't work, and leaves it in otherwise. This > allows the

On May 7, 2009, at 6:24 PM, Mike Stump wrote: > I'm toying with building with -mdynamic-no-pic, but for this to work, > the shared library bits in llvm can't be built with that flag. Hi Mike, If you're doing this for Clang's benefit, I think the best thing to do is to compile LLVM PIC (the default) and then build the clang front- end pieces with -mdynamic-no-pic. Does

I'm toying with building with -mdynamic-no-pic, but for this to work, the shared library bits in llvm can't be built with that flag. I've found that: Index: Makefile.rules =================================================================== --- Makefile.rules (revision 71041) +++ Makefile.rules (working copy) @@ -472,6 +476,9 @@ ifneq ($(DARWIN_MAJVERS),4) LD.Flags += $(RPATH)

I'm continuing my quest to integrate _GLIBCXX_DEBUG into the config system. I now have things at a point where I can configure llvm to build with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG and the llvm-gcc will pick up the correct CPPFLAGS automatically. One thing I noticed in the llvm Makefile.rules is this: # If DISABLE_ASSERTIONS=1 is specified (make command line or configured), # then disable assertions by

Hi David, On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 17:43 -0500, David A. Greene wrote: > I'm continuing my quest to integrate _GLIBCXX_DEBUG into the config system. > I now have things at a point where I can configure llvm to build with > -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG and the llvm-gcc will pick up the correct CPPFLAGS > automatically. Okay. > > One thing I noticed in the llvm Makefile.rules is this:

Hello, > On Oct 28, 2008, at 10:10 AM, 谭明星 wrote: >> >> PS: The following are links about this paper: >> http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1356064 >> http://www.if.insa-lyon.fr/chercheurs/jpbabau/emsoc/presentations/EmSoC07_Boissinot.pdf >> I've put the slides from CGO online:

On Tuesday 26 June 2007 14:05, Reid Spencer wrote: > I think you mis-interpreted something. That's not surprising. :) > If you build with -disable-assertions you are telling whatever build > mode (Debug or Release) to not include assertions. Consequently you get > either Release-Asserts (Release minus asserts) or Debug-Asserts (Debug > minus Asserts). I was wondering if

Hi:    I want to do some optimization on MachineLoop. So I want to get MachineLoopInfo from MachineFunction. I reference MachineLICM.cpp. So I try to write a pass in Target/mytarget directory. I find there is Error. llvm/include/llvm/PassAnalysisSupport.h:198: AnalysisType& llvm::Pass::getAnalysisID(const llvm::PassInfo*) const [with AnalysisType = llvm::MachineLoopInfo]: Assertion

Mingxing, Your project sounds interesting and if it significantly improves over the live variable analysis that is in LLVM right now, I think it could be a useful contribution. I'm copying the 'llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu' mailing list, which you should join. Send all related messages to this list to get feedback on your goals and also to get help with any problems you face.

Reid, I think it is the first time it is run that the errors occcur !? Not sure but that would seem logical. Aaron

Hi, Benoit, Thanks very much for your advice. You see the algorithm greatly improve the performance of liveness analysis. However, it seems still not efficient. First, it is inefficient in space. You have to pre-compute all Tq for every Tq and save them, even though only the highest nodes of Tq are needed for a given query(q,v); Second, it is inefficient in time. Given any query(q,v), you have to

If anyone has some reasonably valid gprof output laying around (from a vorbis encoding run), could you email it to me? Thanks, --Mike --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-dev-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No

I have inherited a legacy S-plus system with about 10,000 lines of S and 10,000 lines of Fortran. It's now running under R. However, I would like to profile the fortran code with gprof or prof for performance tuning. I've successfully linked the .so file into a simple C driver program and profiled, but I can't seem to get profiling to work when using dyn.load() to use it from R. Do

This is an excellent project. We look forward to seeing your work! Is it possible for you to implement your work on the mainline and contribute back patches along the way? That way, the community can offer suggestions and we will try *harder* not to break your pass. Evan On Oct 29, 2008, at 10:39 PM, Star wrote: > Hi, Benoit, > Thanks very much for your advice. > You see the

Good summer, all! This patch enables ENABLE_SHARED=1 to build DLL based LLVM toolchain. I have checked this on Cygwin-1.5, Cygwin-1.7, mingw(msysgit) and mingw-cross-fedora12. I can separate this patch into some parts; cleanups, adding definitions and adding rules. Any feedbacks are welcome. Have fun! ...Takumi * Pros - reduction of linking time of toolchain. - capability of -load

Hi, Evan. I'm new in LLVM project developing. How should I work on the mainline? I have check out the latest copy of LLVM from Subvresion using the Read-Only account. Do you mean I should provide the patch to the mainline periodic in this LLVMDEV mailing list? Anyway, thanks for your advice :) Star > -----Original Message----- > From: Evan Cheng [mailto:evan.cheng at apple.com] >

Hi, Dear Boissinot: 1. When I have irreducible CFG, I travel its nodes by DFS. search backedge for every node. After I finish one node, push it into a stack. [0, 1, 2, M] <---push. [0, 1, 2, M,...N] <---push. When resolving node M, find a edge from node N to node M, N is not in stack(M < N), It is a backedge. N is in stack(M > N), It is NOT a backedge.

2010/1/25 任坤 <hbrenkun at yahoo.cn>: > Hi: > > I hope to cut all backedges of MachineFunction CFG, then topological sort MachineBasicBlocks. > > 1. MachineDominatorTree *domintree = new MachineDominatorTree(); > domintree->runOnMachineFunction(mf); > > 2. Then travel mf one by one. > When domintree->dominates(next,current) is true, there is a backedge

--- autoconf/configure.ac | 4 +++- cmake/modules/LLVMConfig.cmake.in | 3 ++- configure | 4 +++- tools/llvm-config/Makefile | 6 ++++++ tools/llvm-config/llvm-config.in.in | 3 ++- 5 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/autoconf/configure.ac b/autoconf/configure.ac index f3e94e8..cd943cc 100644 ---