similar to: [LLVMdev] opt -globaldce -deadargelim yields different result then when run separately

Jack Howarth wrote: > I've had better luck compiling all of pymol 1.1r2 with > -O4 on darwin9. Everythink links and there appears to be > no regressions in the resulting code. I take it that LTO > in llvm 2.5 is still limited to dead code elimination, > correct? No. libLTO does the equivalent to opt -internalize -ipsccp -globalopt -constmerge -deadargelim -instcombine

Hello, I am trying to simplify the CFG of a given code and eliminate the conditionals, even though I will obtain codes that are not semantically equivalent. For example, given a simple loop: for(i=0; i<N; i++){    a[i] = i;     if (i%2==0)       a[i] += 12; } I would keep only the loop, without the if statement: for(i=0; i<N; i++){    a[i] = i; } I can eliminate such conditionals on

Thanks to you both. On my Linux (centos6) system, I have reproduce a variant of the bug and learned about -plugin-opt=-debug-pass=Arguments which I infer from comments is intended to built arguments to “opt” however I found that some of the arguments don’t seem to be quite correct. I assume this just minor bit rot. bin/opt -o pass1.bc -datalayout -notti -basictti -x86tti -targetlibinfo

Hi, I've been thinking about how to keep the line number with the llvm transform/Analysis passes. Basically, I agree with Chris's notes ( http://www.nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/DebugInfoImprovements.txt), and I will follow his way to turn on the line number information when optimization enabled. Here is a detailed proposal: 1. Introduction At the time of this writing, LLVM's

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 01:07:07PM -0700, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev wrote: > > > On May 9, 2016, at 10:43 AM, Ricardo Nobre via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm a PhD student doing phase ordering as part of my PhD topic and I would like to ask some questions about LLVM. > > > > Executing the following

I wonder whether this question is appropriate to this forum or not; if not, please educate me. For the following command line arguments, what happens to the optimization phases when the licm phase moves out loop invariant instructions to loop preheaders? opt -simplifycfg -instcombine -inline -globaldce -instcombine -simplifycfg -scalarrepl -mem2reg -verify -sccp -adce -licm -instcombine -dce

Hi all, I would like to know which optimization passes are performed at -O2 by opt. So I used following command: llvm-as < /dev/null | opt -O2 -std-compile-opts -disable-output -debug-pass=Arguments I've got following output for LLVM opt 2.9: Pass Arguments: -no-aa -tbaa -basicaa -simplifycfg -domtree -scalarrepl -early-cse Pass Arguments: -targetlibinfo -no-aa -tbaa -basicaa

Which transformation passes are 'safe', meaning it does not worsens the effectiveness of a later pass or the generated code? I imagine all passes which either removes data or add attributes are included in this list, plus some simplification passes: -adce -argpromotion -constmerge -constprop -deadargelim -dse -functionattrs -globaldce -globalopt -gvn -instcombine -internalize

Hi, I'm a PhD student doing phase ordering as part of my PhD topic and I would like to ask some questions about LLVM. Executing the following command to see what passes does OPT execute when targeting a SPARC V8 processor: /opt/clang+llvm-3.7.1-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-15.10/bin/llvm-as < /dev/null | /opt/clang+llvm-3.7.1-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-15.10/bin/opt -O3 -march=sparc -mcpu=v8

On Tuesday 13 July 2010 19:48:25 you wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Torvald Riegel > > I thought that the layout of structs was supposed to be preserved (wrong > > assumption?). Otherwise, any ideas why this happens? > > It should be preserved in general; Is this a "should" or a "must"? Are there any cases in which structure layout must be

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Torvald Riegel <torvald at se.inf.tu-dresden.de> wrote: > On Tuesday 13 July 2010 19:48:25 you wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Torvald Riegel >> > I thought that the layout of structs was supposed to be preserved (wrong >> > assumption?). Otherwise, any ideas why this happens? >> >> It should be preserved in

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Torvald Riegel > <torvald at se.inf.tu-dresden.de> wrote: >> On Tuesday 13 July 2010 19:48:25 you wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Torvald Riegel >>> > I thought that the layout of structs was supposed to be preserved (wrong

I have a compiler transform that I have been working on that produces bytecode that passes the verifier. However, when I try to read that bytecode back in, I get the assertion failure below. llvm::BytecodeReader::ParseConstantPoolValue(unsigned int): Assertion `(!isa<Constant>(Result) || !cast<Constant>(Result)->isNullValue()) || !hasImplicitNull(TypeID) &&

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Torvald Riegel >> <torvald at se.inf.tu-dresden.de> wrote: >>> On Tuesday 13 July 2010 19:48:25 you wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:09

Ryan, This looks like a bug. Could you file it, please? Reid. On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 19:47 -0600, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I have a compiler transform that I have been working on that produces > bytecode that passes the verifier. However, when I try to read that > bytecode back in, I get the assertion failure below. > > llvm::BytecodeReader::ParseConstantPoolValue(unsigned

instcombine doesn't seem to be doing it. From my testing it seems to only occur when I use -indvars after a long string of commands. For example: llvm-as < test_fc_27.ll | opt -preverify -domtree -verify -lowersetjmp -raiseallocs -simplifycfg -domtree -domfrontier -mem2reg -globalopt -globaldce -ipconstprop -deadargelim -instcombine -simplifycfg -ba siccg -prune-eh -inline

Hi Vikram, I want to use poolalloc as a means for partitioning memory in Software Transactional Memory. We will have a paper about tuning parameters in word-based STMs in PPoPP 08, but there we use one configuration for the complete TM, which obviously has limitations in heterogenous workloads. Partitioning with poolalloc should give me (1) hopefully meaningful partitions (ie,

Hi, I recently looked quite some time for why poolalloc wouldn't transform calls to malloc() in my program, until I noticed that it handles calls to malloc() (eg, stdlib pass) -- but only transforms MallocInst's. Is there a general policy on how passes should behave? Should they handle both representations, is doing -raiseallocs the preferred way, or do we explicitely not want any

On Wednesday 01 April 2009 20:01:09 Dan Gohman wrote: > On Apr 1, 2009, at 7:25 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote: > > On Wednesday 25 March 2009, Luke Dalessandro wrote: > >> You could encode this information as simple library function calls > >> and > >> then find them again in the generated LLVM IR. The client then just > >> needs a header declaring the

Does LLVM have loop multiversioning ? it seems it does not with clang++ -O3 -mllvm -debug-pass=Arguments program.c -c bash-4.1$ clang++ -O3 -mllvm -debug-pass=Arguments fast_algorithms.c -c clang-3.6: warning: treating 'c' input as 'c++' when in C++ mode, this behavior is deprecated Pass Arguments: -datalayout -notti -basictti -x86tti -targetlibinfo -no-aa -tbaa -scoped-noalias