similar to: [LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef

Duncan, thanks for your answer! > In order to perform this transform the optimizers would have to work out > that sample does not modify any global state.  This cannot be done without > knowing the definition of sample, but you only provide a declaration. Which is why I am trying to supply this additional information in a custom alias analysis pass, but it doesn't seem to work. (The

Hi Stephan, > intrinsic float4 sample(int tex, float2 tc); > > float4 main(int tex, float2 tc) > { > float4 x = sample(tex, tc); > return 0.0; > } without additional information it would be wrong to remove the call to sample because it might write to a global variable. > As you can see, the call to the sample function is still present, > although the actual value

Hi there, I am doing: opt -print-memdeps ./test.bc -analyze -globalsmodref-aa by adding globalsmodref-aa, I am hoping that globalsmodref alias analysis will be used. However, it does not turn out to be so. I found this out by adding some "errs() << " into the source code for that alias analysis. So my question is what should I do to let memory dependency analysis use

Hi Jorge, > I'm implementing an intra-procedural analysis. For correctness, during > the analysis of each function I need to know which global variables > may be modified by other functions in order to avoid wrong assumptions > about those variables. > > I looked at lib/Analysis/IPA/GlobalsModRef.cpp and it seems that it > does what I want. My problem is that I don't

Hi all, I'm implementing an intra-procedural analysis. For correctness, during the analysis of each function I need to know which global variables may be modified by other functions in order to avoid wrong assumptions about those variables. I looked at lib/Analysis/IPA/GlobalsModRef.cpp and it seems that it does what I want. My problem is that I don't know how to use it ;-( I wrote a

Hello I am trying to enable globalsmodref-aa by default. globalmodref-aa is a ModulePass and therefore can be invalidated and need to be rerun. I see globalsmodref-aa is enabled in LTO passmanager by adding the analysis pass explicitly. I wonder whether globalsmodref-aa can be enabled/run based on pass dependencies, i.e. those indicated in getAnalysisUsage(). Thanks, Xin -------------- next

Ok, but what about a pass like alias-analysis. How are the results stored, so that other passes can use them. -Raad ________________________________ From: Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:52:58 AM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] information-transfer between analysis-pases On Tue, Feb 17,

Hi Duncan, thanks for the answer. But "opt -load ..../Decorator.so -dec <prog.bc> new_prog.bc" creates an invalid file. When i use "lli", i get "lli: error loading program 'new_prog.bc': Invalid bitcode signature" I have done the followings: 1) used "opt -p -load ..../Decorator.so -dec <prog.bc> new_prog.bc" 2) copied the output

Hi, As far as I know, Instruction class does not inherit "Annotable" Class. Only Function inherits annotable according to the documentation of annotable class. What you are asking would require adding annotations at instruction level, which does not seem to be possible. You can maintain external maps between instructions and your annotations, --Kapil On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 7:17 PM,

Hello together, how can i insert annotations in IR ? I want actually write something like: CallInst *call = CallInst::Create( ??? , aBasicBlock); in my pass. Regards Raad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090305/cd1db761/attachment.html>

Hi Eli, I want to disable optimizations because, i'm going to implement a framework in JAVA for educational purposes. I have planned to do followings: 1) Create LLVM-IR and export it as Assembly (without optimizing the source-code) 2) Transform the LLVM-Assembly to a data-structure, similar to LLVM data structure (Module, Function, BB ...) but implemented in Java 3) Optimizing

Hello together, I have seen that the analysis-results are stored in llvm-IR as annotations. For example <; preds = %entry> in basicBlock level and <; <i32*> [#uses=2]> for a variable. Is there any documentation about annotations? Regards Raad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello together, although i use the "-O0" flag as follow, the llvm perform dead code elimination. How can i disable optimizing completely? KR Raad llvm-gcc -O0 -emit-llvm main.cpp -S -o main.s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20081127/c4ef8aac/attachment.html>

Hello. I read following article in this ML. I'm implementing the library similar with RAAD's plan. - AST node classes for LLVM-IR - LLVM-Assembly writer class - 100% pure Java - Without any optimizations - Without any frontends (parsers) I would like to release my library publicly if all problems below could be solved. (Although it is in the early stage) My library is the mixture of my

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:46 AM, RAAD B <raad_7007 at yahoo.com> wrote: > Hello together, > > I have seen that the analysis-results are stored in llvm-IR as annotations. > For example <; preds = %entry> in basicBlock level and <; <i32*> [#uses=2]> > for a variable. > > Is there any documentation about annotations? That isn't really analysis;

On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 6:14 AM, RAAD B <raad_7007 at yahoo.com> wrote: > Hello together, > > although i use the "-O0" flag as follow, the llvm perform dead code > elimination. > How can i disable optimizing completely? Sorry, it's not possible; the gcc front-end does some optimizations which the LLVM backend can't do anything about, and dead code

Greetings folks! I would like to enable globalsmodref-aa in the non-LTO pass pipeline so that it gets tested more and there are fewer differences between the two. For all of my benchmarks, this is performance neutral, but I'd appreciate others benchmarking this combination to see if they see any benefits or regressions. You can demo this mode easily: -mllvm -enable-non-lto-gmr Please let me

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Lattner" <clattner at apple.com> > To: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Justin Bogner" > <mail at justinbogner.com>, "Duncan Exon Smith"

These are the contents of the generated file. Start >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ; ModuleID = '<stdin>' target datalayout =

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:21 PM Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 13, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Ok folks, > > > > I wrote up the general high-level thoughts I have about stateful AA in a > separate thread. But we need to sort out the completely and horribly broken >