similar to: [LLVMdev] opt -p flag

What exactly are the standard compile options that are implemented when using -std-compile-opts? The reason I'm asking is it seems that -std-compile-opts creates some CFG graphs that are invalid and should not be created and I am trying to figure out which stage is creating this issue? The input LLVM-ir is in test.ll. The version with no optimizations looks correct, but the one using

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > What exactly are the standard compile options that are implemented when > using -std-compile-opts? > > The reason I'm asking is it seems that -std-compile-opts creates some CFG > graphs that are invalid and should not be created and I am trying to figure > out which stage is creating

On Jan 3, 2015, at 11:52 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 2, 2015, at 8:32 PM, David Callahan <dcallahan at fb.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am new to the LLVM dev community so forgive a perhaps obvious question. I am looking at bug 17623 which is an LTO/optimizer interaction bug. I am working on a Mac with Xcode installed but have

Hi Hal, I think the testsuite has support for "opt-beta" which means running opt with special flags side by side with the usual opt. TEST.nightly.Makefile turns this on with ENABLE_OPTBETA. I took a peek at Makefile.programs to see how it is implemented, and as far as I can see it can't possibly actually work :( So probably the simplest thing is to run the testsuite once to get a

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, Is this correct behaviour? test.ll: declare {} @__ex__print_int(i64) define i32 @main() { entry: %0 = call i64 @f.1() %1 = call {} @__ex__print_int(i64 %0) ret i32 0 } define internal fastcc i64 @f.1() { entry: ret i64 7 } > opt -std-compile-opts test.ll -S ; ModuleID = 'test.ll' define i32 @main() noreturn nounwind { entry: tail call void @llvm.trap()

Hi, We are getting closer. 1. In Makefile, all the references to CFLAGS should be CPPFLAGS instead. 2. filterdiff.sh uses sed -re. This causes a problem on Mac OS X where -E means using extended regular expression, not -r. sed: illegal option -- r usage: sed script [-Ealn] [-i extension] [file ...] sed [-Ealn] [-i extension] [-e script] ... [-f script_file] ... [file ...] Can this

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

Hello Kalyan, There is one more thing you should know: Clang has maximum optimization turned on by default. You need to specify -O0 to turn it off if you want to see what opt does without clang running all of the optimizations first. --Sam ----- Original Message ---- > From: Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Sat, April 17, 2010 2:00:00 AM

Let's say I have 2 bytecode files, X.bc and Y.bc that I want to combine into Z.bc. Which of the following command sequences will produce more optimized code? Sequence 1: llvm-link -o tmp.bc X.bc Y.bc opt -std-compile-opts -o Z.bc tmp.bc Sequence 2: llvm-ld -O5 -o Z.bc X.bc Y.bc Without looking at details it seems like sequence 2 should produce the most optimized code. As a follow

I have a problem. I'm writing a C compiler in my favorite programming language (don't ask :-) I have made a .s file, which can be correctly assembled and run with lli. But when I optimize it I get no errors from the optimizer, but the resultant file is incorrect. Here's what happens: llvm-as test2_gen.s %% no errors test2_gen.s.bc is produced lli test2_gen.s.bc n=887459712

I've filed http://www.llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=1912 for the optimizer bug. Evan On Jan 10, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Evan Cheng wrote: > Hi, > > We are getting closer. > > 1. In Makefile, all the references to CFLAGS should be CPPFLAGS > instead. > 2. filterdiff.sh uses sed -re. This causes a problem on Mac OS X where > -E means using extended regular expression, not

what is the solution to pass opt arguments , non ordinary passes like : *-std-link-opts* by clang ? Dose clang invoke opt in normal compilation procedure even? -- View this message in context: http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/Passing-arguments-to-opt-via-clang-tp3161p58920.html Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Hi Kalyan, > opt -strip-dead-prototypes -f <filename.bc> filename2.bc you have to specify the list of passes to run. -strip-dead-prototypes only removes unused declarations. If there are none, it will do nothing. Try: opt -std-compile-opts -f <filename.bc> filename2.bc Ciao, Duncan.

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Nicolas Ojeda Bar <nojb at math.harvard.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > Is this correct behaviour? > > test.ll: > > declare {} @__ex__print_int(i64) > > define i32 @main() { > entry: >  %0 = call i64 @f.1() >  %1 = call {} @__ex__print_int(i64 %0) >  ret i32 0 > } > > define internal fastcc i64 @f.1() { > entry: >

Hi Joe, > I have made a .s file, which can be correctly assembled > and run with lli. But when I optimize it I get no errors > from the optimizer, but the resultant file is incorrect. > > Here's what happens: > > llvm-as test2_gen.s %% no errors test2_gen.s.bc is produced there's actually no need to assemble this to bitcode: you can pass test2_gen.s directly to

PS: Here's how I can reproduce with clang on linux: clang -S -o tsc.ll -O0 -flto -std=gnu99 tsc.c ; clang -S -o dummy.ll -O0 -flto -std=gnu99 dummy.c ; opt -std-compile-opts tsc.ll -S -o tsc.1.ll ; opt -std-compile-opts dummy.ll -S -o dummy.1.ll ; llvm-link tsc.1.ll dummy.1.ll -S -o total.ll ; opt -std-link-opts total.ll -S -o total.1.ll ; llc total.1.ll ; gcc -o z total.1.s The program

How can I setup the test suite to run with special opt flags? Specifically, I'd like to add -unroll-allow-partial -vectorize in order to test my autovectorizer, and then compare that to just having -unroll-allow-partial and also to just the regular -O3. Thanks in advance, Hal -- Hal Finkel Postdoctoral Appointee Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory

Hi, I am trying to implement a scenario similar to running ExceptionDemo.cpp with parameter -1 (where the JITed code calls the C++ function which throws an exception) Different from the given example I am using IRParser instead of IRBuilder. I can successfully catch the exception in Linux but the program crashes in Mac and Windows. The code is similar to as follows: ### The test.cpp :

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I am writing an interprocedural compiler pass. Because the passneeds > information from a FunctionPass, e.g., the post-dominance frontier > (PDF), and because a ModulePass is not permitted to require a > FunctionPass, I am forced to make my pass a FunctionPass and do majority > of its work in the doFinalization() method. ok > When