similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM misses some cross-MBB and loop optimizations compared to GCC

Thanks. Can you file bugzilla reports? I'll look at the first one soon. Evan On Feb 5, 2009, at 8:08 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote: > Hi, > > While testing my new register allocators on some test-cases, I've > noticed that LLVM misses sometimes some optimization opportunities: > > 1) LocalSpiller::RewriteMBB seems not to propagate the information > about e.g. Spills

Hi all, I've run into problems compiling the llvm-gcc frontend on x86_64. Is this not supported, or am I making an error somewhere? The procedure I followed was: 1. Download LLVM 2.0 source as a tarball (from a few days ago, during the testing phase). 2. Download the llvm-gcc4 source today, as a tarball. 3. Extract both. 4. Configure LLVM as: ../src/configure --prefix=`pwd`../install

Hi Warren, You have the -m32 flag set, but it's still giving you this: > Warning: Generation of 64-bit code for a 32-bit processor requested. > Warning: 64-bit processors all have at least SSE2. But are you sure you want to compile the LLVM-GCC source? You should use the binaries unless absolutely necessary. -bw On May 24, 2007, at 10:34 PM, Warren Armstrong wrote: > Hi all,

Hi Warren, you can try to configure with the following export CFLAGS="-m64" export LDFLAGS="-L/usr/lib64" LLVM: ../src/configure --prefix=`pwd`../install --enable-optimized --enable-jit --enable-targets=host-only make LLVM-GCC: ../llvm-gcc4-2.0.source/configure --prefix=`pwd`../install --program-prefix=llvm- --enable-llvm=/home/warren/llvm/obj/ --enable-languages=c,c++

Ok, this is a rather complicated e-mail. Please ask questions if you don't understand something. I've come across an interesting problem. I'm merging our graph coloring allocator with the code from trunk as of late last week. I have a code where a LiveInterval is spilled and some uses can be rematerialized. %reg1235 is spilled and at least one use is rematted. The remat def

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Caldarale, Charles R <Chuck.Caldarale at unisys.com> wrote: >> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] >> On Behalf Of Eli Bendersky >> Subject: [LLVMdev] Getting rid of tabs in LLVM's assembly output? > >> Problem: I then get tabs in my tests, which are discouraged by LLVM's >>

On Friday 09 May 2008 13:20, David Greene wrote: > One is that %reg1461 is assigned a register but LocalSpiller still tries to > remat it instead of just using the register it was assigned to. I think > it's easy enough to fix this problem, but I don't think this gets at the > deeper issue. Duh. Of course this isn't a problem. We have to remat (or load) this because

Dear Ashutosh, Thank you, I can handle some indirect callSites by getFunction() of InvokInst and CallInst. However, when I am handling C++ programs, I found the calls of member functions are converted to some strange indirect calls. For example: table->truncate(sysTransaction); // from mysql are translated to the next complex llvm IR: _ZN8Database20getSystemTransactionEv.exit: ;

So, I won't know the called function statically, Right? -------------------------------------------- Qiuping Yi Institute Of Software Chinese Academy of Sciences On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> wrote: > Typically for C++ virtual function you will see an indirect callSite > (unless not de-virtualized). > > > > Regards, >

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Eli Bendersky > Subject: [LLVMdev] Getting rid of tabs in LLVM's assembly output? > Problem: I then get tabs in my tests, which are discouraged by LLVM's > own code standards, because assembly output uses tabs extensively. > Proposal: get rid of tabs by just replacing them with

Hi LLVMers, I have finally sorted out licensing issues and found some time, so I'm trying to port my PBQP register allocator to 2.4 in order to contribute it (if you want it). I've run into a bug that has me confused though. I'm currently failing the following assertion: llc: VirtRegMap.cpp:1733: void<unnamed>::LocalSpiller::RewriteMBB(llvm::MachineBasicBlock&,

Scenario: sometimes when creating tests for MC, I run llc, take its assembly (.s) output and copy-paste parts of it into a test. Problem: I then get tabs in my tests, which are discouraged by LLVM's own code standards, because assembly output uses tabs extensively. Proposal: get rid of tabs by just replacing them with two spaces everywhere. I had an informal chat about this with Jim on the

Hi all, I want to find all the called functions in each function, thus I iterate the calledFunctions of each CallGraphNode in CallGraph as follow: for (CallGraph::iterator it = CG->begin(); it != CG->end(); ++it) { CallGraphNode* node = it->second; for (CallGraphNode::iterator it2 = node->begin(); it2 != node->end(); ++it2) { Function* calledFunc =

On Sep 3, 2008, at 5:58 AM, Lang Hames wrote: > Hi LLVMers, > > I have finally sorted out licensing issues and found some time, so I'm > trying to port my PBQP register allocator to 2.4 in order to Nice! We would definitely welcome your contribution. > > contribute it (if you want it). I've run into a bug that has me > confused though. > > I'm currently

Hello. I have a problem which is quite basic for array optimization, amd I wonder whether I am missing something, but I could not find the LLVM pass that does it. Consider the following code snippet: int test() { int mat[7][7][7]; int i,j,k,sum=0; for(i=0;i<7;i++){ for(j=0;j<7;j++){ for(k=0;k<7;k++){ sum+=mat[i][j][k]^mat[i][j][k^1]; } } } return

On Aug 17, 2007, at 3:08 PM, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > > Thanks, Evan. > > Actually I've solved my problem with some hints from Dale and > Anton. Ok, cool. I didn't see their replies. Like I said, my email client is acting funny. > At least I think I've solved it. I had to add one method to > TargetInstrInfo to tell me when an instruction

Sorry about the tardiness of my reply. My mail client has playing tricks with me. :-) I am assuming the issue has nothing to do the branch to jumptable instructions but rather the MachineJumpTableInfo associated with every MachineFunction? If so, please take a look at BranchFoldiing.cpp for an example. Evan On Aug 10, 2007, at 12:30 PM, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > >

Hi all, I've been investigating a machine verifier failure on the attached testcase, and I'm tempted to say the verifier is wrong and should accept it. Skip the description for the proposed change. On AArch64, the verifier complains with: *** Bad machine code: MBB exits via unconditional branch but doesn't have exactly one CFG successor! *** - function: t4 - basic

Hi all, I have a pass to break critical edges of Machine Basic Blocks, but I just discovered a bug (when compiling code for x86). The problem is 'jumpl *%reg'. I don't know how to update the jump table for this type of instruction. The code that I had (see below) does not update the jump table, and the actual branch keeps jumping to the old basic block, instead of the new.

Thanks, Evan. Actually I've solved my problem with some hints from Dale and Anton. At least I think I've solved it. I had to add one method to TargetInstrInfo to tell me when an instruction is an indirect jump - TargetInstrInfo::tii.isIndirectJump(opcode). When that is the case, I update the jump table using: // Change jumps to go to the new basic block: