similar to: [LLVMdev] Interprocedural optimizations in LLVM

> If you're running opt on the command line directly, then use the > "-p" option. See "-help" for more information on that. > > -bw > I have a couple of more questions. 1. Does -std-compile-opts of opt do the same optimization with llvm-gcc with -O[1-3] options? If I want to debug into passes through llvm-gcc, how do I set a breakpoint right before pass

Is there a reason that BlockExtractorPass is duplicated? See tools/ Bugpoint/ExtractFunction.cpp and lib/Transforms/IPO/LoopExtractor.cpp. — Gordon

On Nov 4, 2007, at 8:25 AM, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > Is there a reason that BlockExtractorPass is duplicated? See tools/ > Bugpoint/ExtractFunction.cpp and lib/Transforms/IPO/LoopExtractor.cpp. Huh, how about that. It looks like bugpoint should use the other one and drop its copy. -Chris

Sean Silva via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > No tests fail with the patch below, so I would say it's pretty useless. It > seems that the C bindings are the only user but we can probably just have them > return IPSCCP instead. I don't necessarily think your conclusion is wrong, but the patch isn't proving what you think it's proving. In fact, the

The pass is pretty rudimental (as the comment at the top of the file hints), and it seems LLVM already has IPSCCP (which should do a better job at interprocedural constant propagation). I'm also not entirely sure it's used anywhere. Is there any reason to keep it around? Thanks, -- Davide "There are no solved problems; there are only problems that are more or less solved" --

Hello everyone, Quick question about loop extraction in llvm. I've been using the LoopExtractor pass in llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/LoopExtractor.cpp to extract top level loops from programs. I'm wondering if extracting inner-most loops is any more complex than using the BlockExtractor pass in llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/BlockExtractor.cpp and making sure that the basic blocks in the extracted

Hi Johannes, This is very helpful and thank you for the quick response. I imagine that the usual nested loop structure is something like: loop1_header_bb bbs_between_loop1_header_and_loop2_header loop2_header_bb loop_body_bbs br loop2_header_bb instructions_before_loop1_end_and_after_loop2_end br loop1_header_bb In this case you mean that loop2_header_bb might need to be split before

Is it kosher to include vim mode line comments inside of LLVM source files? I would like to do this inside of the MicroBlaze backend to ensure that tabs are expanded into exactly two spaces. I see that right now the following files have these vim mode line comments: include/llvm/ADT/SetVector.h lib/Archive/ArchiveInternals.h lib/Linker/LinkModules.cpp lib/Transforms/IPO/DeadTypeElimination.cpp

attached is the diff of vcprojs that need to be changed to fix the VS build as of revision: 51224. I don't know if this catches all the missing bits, but this does build all the way through. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: msvs.patch URL:

On May 8, 2008, at 05:50, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > I've attached two patches. The first, pass-comments.diff adds or > improves the file comments for a number of passes. This patch is > slightly interesting. The second, pass-doc.diff is mostly a yank-put > job and updates Passes.html as follows. Thanks, applied!

LLVM build without big problems in obj dir == src dir case (for example, last night tester build) But I have problem with building CVS version LLVM in obj dir != src dir case. ======= Finished building ModuleMaker debug executable (without symbols) ======= gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/home/wanderer/pkg/build/llvm/obj/examples/ModuleMaker' gmake[1]: Leaving directory

Can someone explain what *-loop-extract* pass does with an example? Thanks, Harish C -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200817/8b4651b4/attachment.html>

Hi Dmitri, For what version of VS did you update the project files? Ted On May 17, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Dmitri Makarov wrote: > attached is the diff of vcprojs that need to be changed to fix the VS > build as of revision: 51224. > > I don't know if this catches all the missing bits, but this does build > all the way through. > > > Index: win32/Analysis/Analysis.vcproj

I resend email with updated (after mass header move) log examples. > LLVM build without big problems in obj dir == src dir case (for example, > last night tester build) > But I have problem with building CVS version LLVM in obj dir != src dir > case. > gmake[1]: Entering directory `/usr/home/wanderer/pkg/build/llvm/obj/projects' gmake[2]: Entering directory

Hello, LLVMers. I am trying to restore the original HL code from LLVM IR (kinda reverse engineering). There are two main issues for that, control-flow analysis and data-flow analysis. (Thanks to your suggestsions) I have good refereces about the control-flow analysis for structuring conditionals, loops and so on. However, I have no good idea about data-flow analysis, especially on PHI-functions.

Hi all, here comes the patch for the first wave of Use class size reduction. I have split it into 3 files, corresponding to - header changes - implementation changes - applications This at the moment does not contain the description how the size of the Use class will be reduced from 16 to 12 bytes, I am going to send that in a separate patch. This wave primarily consists of changes that are

Hi all, is there any way to mark a non-referenced function declaration as "used" in any way (by using the C++ code generator) so that it will be ignored by the stripDeadPrototypes and globalDCE pass (and any other pass that possibly might remove seemingly unused functions)? Basically, my modules have a set of function declarations (without an actual body, just a global mapping

Hi, 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 llvm-gcc-4.2. First, I compile example.cpp (attached; taken from the bug #1227) with: $

As came up recently in other threads, loop passes really get in the way. Here are some of the ways: - There is only one Loop analysis pass - IVUsers. It seems unlikely that the loop nest walk is critical to computing this or preserving it. - Almost all of the things we think of as "required" and dependencies are actually *transforms* that canonicalize the form of a loop into particular

Hi all, I've attached two patches. The first, pass-comments.diff adds or improves the file comments for a number of passes. This patch is slightly interesting. The second, pass-doc.diff is mostly a yank-put job and updates Passes.html as follows. I've removed the following passes from the documentation: Lower GC intrinsics, for GCless code generators (-lowergc) Correlated Expression