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

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

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

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 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 Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > Since the compiler is always free to delete available_externally > functions, I think you could just add a pass to the -flto=thin pipeline > that deletes all of them (referenced or not) -- it's just a single loop > through all the functions deleting the bodies of those with the right

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

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

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

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:52 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:04 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at

add -basicaa to your command line :) On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Willy WOLFF <willy.mh.wolff at gmail.com> wrote: > I play a bit more with MemoryDependenceAnalysis by wrapping my pass, and > call explicitely BasicAliasAnalysis. Its still using No Alias Analysis. > > How can I let MemoryDependenceAnalysis use BasicAliasAnalysis? > > Please, find attached my pass. >

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > >> On 2015-Jun-03, at 09:56, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > >> On 2015-Jun-04, at 07:10, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith >> <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-Jun-03, at 09:56, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at