similar to: [LLVMdev] Reproducing output of llvm-gcc using opt tool

On Dec 7, 2007, at 1:43 AM, Wojciech Matyjewicz wrote: > Recently, I was looking into the bug #1227. I wanted to check if > reordering optimization passes could solve it. To start with, I > tried to > reproduce the output of llvm-g++ -O3 using the combination of llvm-g++ > -O0 and opt with the appropriate passes. However, I was unable to. I > use > SVN versions of llvm and

I've developed a working LLVM back-end (based on LLVM 2.6) for a custom architecture with its own tool chain. This tool chain creates stand-alone programs from a single assembly. We used to use GCC, which supported producing a single machine assembly from multiple source files. I modified Clang to accept the architecture, but discovered that clang-cc (or the Clang Tool subclass inside Clang)

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 4, 2008, at 8:58 AM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > > What optimization pass promotes 32 bit math operations to 64 bit operations > so I can disable it? I have code that works fine with optimizations turned > off but fails with it turned on because of this stage. > > > Do you have a

Does anyone have experience to compile Linux kernel in LLVM-2.6? I am working on a C/C++ race detection framework and want to test in large applications. But I do have a lot of errors while compiling Linux kernel 2.6.3 using LLVM-2.6. Actually, I only need to get the .bc bitcode file. Anyboy does similar work before? Which Linux kernel version is used and any skills? Thanks. Lei /****** * Lei

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

I add also the output of these commands: [hades at artemis examples]$ ./compile_ex.sh super_simple_loop Printing analysis 'Polly - Detect Scops in functions' for function 'main': [hades at artemis examples]$ modifying it in : #include <stdio.h> int main() { int A[1024]; int j, k=10; for (j = 0; j < 1024; j++) A[j] = k;

On 10/07/2011 03:43 PM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: > 2011/10/7 Marcello Maggioni<hayarms at gmail.com>: >> Hi, >> >> for example this loop: >> >> #include<stdio.h> >> >> int main() >> { >> int A[1024]; >> int j, k=10; >> for (j = 1; j< 1024; j++) >> A[j] =

Hi Tobias, thanks for the answer. I'll try to give a look to the code you pointed me to , and I'll try to make the modification myself. I'm new to LLVM and Polly, but the code of both seem clean and understandable, so I hope to be able to do it myself. In case I'll ask here for support :) Marcello 2011/10/1 Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es>: > On 10/01/2011 03:26

I was trying the new feature you introduce about printing out the graphs, so I updated my version of llvm/clang/polly synchronizing them to the last version, but I get this error launching clang (also , I recently switched to MacOS X for development): $ clang not_so_simple_loop.c -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang ${PATH_TO_POLLY_LIB}/LLVMPolly.dylib -mllvm -enable-polly-viewer -mllvm -enable-iv-rewrite

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

On 10/22/2011 08:41 AM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: > I was trying the new feature you introduce about printing out the > graphs, so I updated my version of llvm/clang/polly synchronizing them > to the last version, but I get this error launching clang (also , I > recently switched to MacOS X for development): > > $ clang not_so_simple_loop.c -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang >

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

Hi, > If I compile the program using the following command line i.e. > > $ clang -O3 -lm *.c this may be doing link time optimization. > > then > > $ time ./a.out > > real 0m2.606s > user 0m2.584s > sys 0m0.012s > > BUT, if I use all the optimizations enabled with -O3 but specify them > explicity i.e. you can just use "opt -O3"

Hi, > I tried it with -o - but its producing an error > > gcc: fatal error: cannot specify -o with -c, -S or -E with multiple files > > What you suggest? what I wrote: >> for F in *.c ; do B=`basename $F .c` ; gcc -fplugin=/path/to/dragonegg.so >> -S -o - $F -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-emit-ir | opt -adce -o $B.ll ; done >> clang *.ll Thanks to the for loop and

Hello I need some help here please. If we compile source files directly in to native code: $ clang -O3 -lm *.c then the runtime is like following real 0m2.807s user 0m2.784s sys 0m0.012s and If we emit LLVM bytcode and apply optimizations $ clang -O3 -c -emit-llvm *.c $ llvm-link *.o -o comb.ll $ time lli ./comb.ll then the runtime is real 0m2.671s user 0m2.640s sys 0m0.020s But, if I

Hi Yes, they both are exactly the same. Regards Shahzad On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi, is the comb.ll used here: > > >> $ time lli ./comb.ll >> >> then the runtime is >> >> real    0m2.671s >> user    0m2.640s >> sys     0m0.020s >> >> But, if I convert this same file comb,ll

Hi all, I have investigated the 6X extra compile-time overhead when Polly compiles the simple nestedloop benchmark in LLVM-testsuite. (http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/31?compare_to=28&baseline=28). Preliminary results show that such compile-time overhead is resulted by the complicated polly-dependence analysis. However, the key seems to be the polly-prepare pass, which introduces

Hello Duncan Sorry for the mistake. Actually that error occurred when I was compiling all the files at once, NOT in for loop. The for loop is working perfectly as it is dealing with individual files. I have now one new issue. Let me specify it briefly. If I compile the program using the following command line i.e. $ clang -O3 -lm *.c then $ time ./a.out real 0m2.606s user 0m2.584s sys

Thanks Duncan It was really helpful. Regards Abdul On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi, > > >> If I compile the program using the following command line i.e. >> >> $ clang -O3 -lm *.c > > > this may be doing link time optimization. > > >> >> then >> >> $ time ./a.out >>

Hi, is the comb.ll used here: > $ time lli ./comb.ll > > then the runtime is > > real 0m2.671s > user 0m2.640s > sys 0m0.020s > > But, if I convert this same file comb,ll in to native binary the same as the comb.ll used here: > $ clang comb.ll ? Ciao, Duncan. > > and execute it, then the runtime increases alot > > $ time ./a.out > > real