similar to: [LLVMdev] linux/x86-64 codegen support

libcpp/charset.c:631 turns into: %tmp16 = tail call i64 @strlen( i8* %to ) nounwind readonly ; <i64> [#uses=1] %tmp18 = tail call i64 @strlen( i8* %from ) nounwind readonly ; <i64> [#uses=1] %tmp19 = add i64 %tmp16, 2 ; <i64> [#uses=1] %tmp20 = add i64 %tmp19, %tmp18 ; <i64> [#uses=1] %tmp21 = tail

Interestingly, in the .i file there are 2 __builtin_alloca, and EmitBuiltinAlloca is only being called once. Andrew On 2/16/08, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > libcpp/charset.c:631 turns into: > > %tmp16 = tail call i64 @strlen( i8* %to ) nounwind readonly > ; <i64> [#uses=1] > %tmp18 = tail call i64 @strlen( i8* %from ) nounwind

Hello, I want to compile a LLVM file into an executable running on ARM platform. I use LLVM 2.0 with the following command lines: llvm-as -f -o test.bc test.ll llc -march=arm -mcpu=arm1136j-s -mattr=+v6 -f -o test.s test.bc arm-linux-gnu-as -mcpu=arm1136j-s test.s With the last command, I obtain the following error: rd and rm should be different in mul The bad instruction is

Hi Mikael, You are obtaining warning, not an error, right? The most arm cores, including arm1136, can execute mul with rd = rm. So, you can ignore this warning. Lauro 2007/6/12, Peltier, Mikael <m-peltier at ti.com>: > > > > > Hello, > > > > I want to compile a LLVM file into an executable running on ARM platform. > > I use LLVM 2.0 with the following

Hello, I've come across another example: I'm compiling with clang -S -emit-llvm -std=gnu99 -O3 clang version 2.9 (trunk 118238) Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Thread model: posix I take the code: int loops(int x) { int ret = 0; for(int i = 0; i < x; i++) { for(int j = 0; j < x; j++) { ret += 1; } } return ret; } and the

I am seeing the wf loop get optimized just fine with llvm 2.8 (and almost as good with head). I'm running on Mac OS X 10.6. I have an apple supplied llvm-gcc and a self compiled llvm 2.8. When I run $ llvm-gcc -emit-llvm -S M.c $ opt -O2 M.s | llvm-dis I see that: 1. Tail recursion has been eliminated from wf 2. The accesses to sp have been promoted to registers 3. The loop has

The following piece of IR is a fixed point for opt -std-compile-opts/-O3: --- target datalayout = "e-p:64:64:64-S128-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:64:64-f16:16:16-f32:32:32-f64:64:64-f128:128:128-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-s0:64:64-f80:128:128-n8:16:32:64" target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" ; Function Attrs: nounwind readonly define i32 @get32Bits(i8*

Andrew Lenharth wrote: > Interestingly, in the .i file there are 2 __builtin_alloca, and > EmitBuiltinAlloca is only being called once. > > Hmm, here EmitBuiltinAlloca gets called twice, but it looks like validate_arglist is rejecting the args both times. I have 2 calls to alloca generated: $ grep alloca x.bc|grep call %tmp21 = call i8* @alloca( i64 %tmp20 ) nounwind

See the bug for a reduction and the gimple trees. validate_arglist definately is rejecting the arglist in EmitBuiltinAlloca. (try: bool TreeToLLVM::EmitBuiltinAlloca(tree exp, Value *&Result) { tree arglist = TREE_OPERAND(exp, 1); if (!validate_arglist(arglist, INTEGER_TYPE, VOID_TYPE)) { debug_tree(arglist); return false; } Value *Amt = Emit(TREE_VALUE(arglist), 0); Amt =

Hi all, There might be a bug in DeadStoreElimination.cpp. This pass eliminates stores backwards aggressively in an end BB. It does not check dependencies on stores in an end BB though. For example, in this code snippet: ... 1. %sum.safe_r47.pre-phi = phi i64* [ %sum.safe_r47.pre, %entry.for.end_crit_edge ], [ %sum.safe_r42, %for.body ] 2. %call9 = call i32 @gettimeofday(%struct.timeval* %end,

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Zeng Bin <ezengbin at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> There might be a bug in DeadStoreElimination.cpp. This pass eliminates >> stores backwards aggressively in an end BB. It does not check dependencies >> on stores in an end BB though.

False Alarm!! Still don't know how to do it! I am trying to write a transformation pass to extract a loop body into a function. For example: The Loop in question is: for (i2 = 0; i2 < LOOP_SIZE; i2++) { A[B[i2]] = 2 * B[i2]; } The IR for which is: bb13: ; preds = %bb13, %bb %i2.0.reg2mem.0 = phi i32 [ 0, %bb ], [ %indvar.next62, %bb13 ] ; <i32>

Sorry! It worked with ExtractBasicBlock() ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mrunal J Shah" <mrunal.shah at gatech.edu> To: "llvmdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2008 8:30:33 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [LLVMdev] How to extract loop body into a new function? Hi All, I am having trouble extracting loop body into a new

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Zeng Bin <ezengbin at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > There might be a bug in DeadStoreElimination.cpp. This pass eliminates > stores backwards aggressively in an end BB. It does not check dependencies > on stores in an end BB though. For example, in this code snippet: >   ... > 1.  %sum.safe_r47.pre-phi = phi i64* [ %sum.safe_r47.pre,

Hi All, I am having trouble extracting loop body into a new function. The ExtractLoop() or ExtractBasicBlock() extracts the entire loop along with the header into a new function. All I want is to extract the body of the loop into a new function(without the header). Is this possible? Thanks, Mrunal

Hey Duncan, hey everybody else, I just stumbled upon a problem in the latest llvm-gcc trunk which is related to my previous problem with the 64bit ABI and structs: Given the following code: struct float3 { float x, y, z; }; extern "C" void __attribute__((noinline)) test(float3 a, float3* res) { res->y = a.y; } int main(void) { float3 a; float3 res; test(a,

It does not do anything. It is an abstract function which transforms a pointer and returns another pointer of the same type. It does not visit memory or capture the pointer parameter. On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at

If int_guard_load returns a pointer based on the passed-in pointer, it captures it (at least according to the definition of "capture" which NoCapture uses). -Eli On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Zeng Bin <ezengbin at gmail.com> wrote: > It does not do anything. It is an abstract function which transforms a > pointer and returns another pointer of the same type. It does not

Hello everybody, I have stumbled upon a test case (the attached module is a slightly reduced version) that shows extremely reduced performance on linux compared to windows when executed using LLVM's JIT. We narrowed the problem down to the actual code being generated, the source IR on both systems is the same. Try compiling the attached module: llc -O3 -filetype=asm -o BAD.s BAD.ll Under

Hi Ralf, > I do not understand why this behaviour is required. What is the problem > in having a function receive a single struct-parameter with three floats > compared to two scalar parameters? > > source-code (C++): > struct Test3Float { float a, b, c; }; > void test(Test3Float param, Test3Float* result) { ... } if you compile this with GCC, you will see that it too