similar to: [LLVMdev] opt options

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

I found a case where GVN seems to miscompile an OpenCL program. What I am trying to figure out is given a bitcode file, how can I reduce it to a simpler case with bugpoint when I don't have a valid reference compiler available. Thanks for any tips, Micah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

We have a test case where we are hitting an assertion in the X86 code generator. The assertion is: "Assertion failed: TheCU && "Unable to find compile unit!", file .\..\..\..\lib\CodeGen\AsmPrinter\DwarfDebug.cpp, line 1411" The bitcode is attached. What I am trying to figure out is what is malformed about our debug that is causing this error? This is reproducible

I have a very simple kernel that is generating very very bad code. The basic kernel pseudo-code is as follows: forloop(1 to n) { forloop(0 to j) { A } B } C It is generating very ugly and inefficient code for a vector system similar to the following pseudo-code: if (n > 1) { if (j) { forloop(1 to n) { forloop(0 to j) {

On Oct 6, 2009, at 4:28 PM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > I have a very simple kernel that is generating very very bad code. > > The basic kernel pseudo-code is as follows: > forloop(1 to n) { > forloop(0 to j) { > A > } > B > } > C > > It is generating very ugly and inefficient code for a vector system > similar to the following pseudo-code: > if (n >

Hi, when reporting http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5104 I spent quite a while trying to figure out what passes are used by "-O1" so that I could give this list to bugpoint. It turns out -debug-pass=Arguments is mentioned in docs/HowToSubmitABug.html but under a chapter titled "Compile-time optimization bugs" which I naively ignored since my bug was not a compile-time

On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 03:50:09PM -0500, Patrick Meredith wrote: > MetaSplit is an anlysis I just finished writing. It doesn't alter > anything, all it does is build a set of "program instructions". For > some reason even though if I run it with any other combination of > passes I've found, anytime I run it with mem2reg I get a seg fault in > dyn_cast!

Thank you for this information. If so, is there any way to grasp which kinda data throw in and out in LLVM as shown in such a way in gdb? Thanks, Seung Jae Lee ---- Original message ---- >Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:54:04 -0600 >From: "John T. Criswell" <criswell at cs.uiuc.edu> >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] bugpoint usage >To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at

From: metafoo at gmail.com [mailto:metafoo at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Richard Smith Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:30 PM To: Villmow, Micah Cc: Eli Friedman; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] SPIR Portability Discussion On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com<mailto:Micah.Villmow at amd.com>> wrote:

> -----Original Message----- > From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:50 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: Richard Smith; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] SPIR Portability Discussion > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> >

> -----Original Message----- > From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:03 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: LLVM Developers Mail > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] FW: RFC: Supporting different sized address space > arithmetic > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> > wrote: > >

Ahh yep, thanks for catching that, new patch attached. > -----Original Message----- > From: Hal Finkel [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 1:40 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: Developers Mailing List > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]> > > Micah, > > I think that your patch is missing the necessary

> -----Original Message----- > From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:43 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: LLVM Developers Mail > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] FW: RFC: Supporting different sized address space > arithmetic > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> > wrote: > >

> -----Original Message----- > From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:22 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: Richard Smith; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] SPIR Portability Discussion > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> >

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:03 PM >> To: Villmow, Micah >> Cc: LLVM Developers Mail >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] FW: RFC: Supporting different sized address space >>

Most likely this code was added before getSExtOrTruncate was added, but not 100% sure. It seems to assume that no pointer can be more than 64bits in size. > -----Original Message----- > From: Hal Finkel [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov] > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 4:27 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: LLVM Developers Mail > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] FW: RFC: Supporting different sized

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:50 PM >> To: Villmow, Micah >> Cc: Richard Smith; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] SPIR

From: Justin Holewinski [mailto:justin.holewinski at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 9:48 AM To: Villmow, Micah Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Changes to the PTX calling conventions On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com<mailto:Micah.Villmow at amd.com>> wrote: Currently, PTX has its own calling conventions where

> -----Original Message----- > From: Villmow, Micah > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 2:56 PM > To: 'Eli Friedman' > Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List > Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] RFC: Supporting different sized address space > arithmetic > > Eli, > There is a patch that implements the beginning what I think is the > correct approach to support the backend

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com>wrote: > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* metafoo at gmail.com [mailto:metafoo at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Richard > Smith > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:30 PM > *To:* Villmow, Micah > *Cc:* Eli Friedman; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > > *Subject:* Re: