similar to: [LLVMdev] addRequired(), Loop Unrolling

Hi, just a quick question about the intent of the ApproximateLoopSize() function in LoopUnroll.cpp: If a loop contains debug stoppoint intrinsics, does it make sense to count them? My understanding is that they are removed when not running under llvm-db anyway, so we probably shouldn't make size judgements based on them. Is that right, or am I missing something? Anyway, if I'm right,

Dear Staff, Here are some questions on the output formats of AliasSetTracker. The code is as below: int G1 = 9; int G2 = 5; int main() { int * XX; int * YY; XX = &G1; YY = XX; YY = &G2; XX = &G2; } The output for -anders-aa is: Alias Set Tracker: 5 alias sets for 4 pointer values. AliasSet[0xea6fb0,0] may alias, Mod/Ref 10 Call Sites: void ({ }*)*

The loop rotation pass does modify the function, which I'm guessing means that a FunctionPassManager can be used to run LoopPasses (this is not obvious to me after looking through the FunctionPassManager code). Unfortunately none of the other passes I'm using (ScalarEvolution, LCSSA, IndVarSimplify, and LoopUnroll) appear to have an effect. I verified that the function can be loop

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:07 PM, <hc2428 at columbia.edu> wrote: > However, I am a little confused with these output. In Both anders-aa > and steens-aa, XX and YY should stay in the same AliasSet, and their > alias relationship should be May Alias, right? %XX and %YY are the results of alloca instructions (i.e. equivalent to the C expressions "&XX" and

Quoting Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com>: Dear Eli, Thanks very much for your reply. I have modified the XX and YY to be global variables, but the output of AliasSetTracker are still MUST alias: Alias Set Tracker: 5 alias sets for 4 pointer values. AliasSet[0xea55d0,0] may alias, Mod/Ref 8 Call Sites: void ({ }*)* @llvm.dbg.func.start, void (i32, i32, { }*)*

Hi all, I'm attempting to perform loop unrolling on a single function using the C++ API. Maybe I missed something in the docs, but I cannot figure out a way to do this. The function I'm working with is very simple, containing a single for loop and not much else. I compiled the function to IR using clang with no optimizations enabled. My initial plan was to first run the IndVarSimplify

Hello, I wrote my own pass which needs to do some loop unrolling. I can perform loop unrolling via opt: opt -mem2reg -loops -loop-simplify -loop-rotate -lcssa -loop-unroll -unroll-count=50 mytest.bc -o mytest.bc This command works perfectly. However, what I really want is to produce the **same behavior** but from my own pass (i.e., I don't want to use opt). I wrote a Module pass which

On Aug 6, 2012, at 6:04 AM, Jorge Navas <navas at comp.nus.edu.sg> wrote: > > Hello, > > I wrote my own pass which needs to do some loop unrolling. > > I can perform loop unrolling via opt: > > opt -mem2reg -loops -loop-simplify -loop-rotate -lcssa -loop-unroll > -unroll-count=50 mytest.bc -o mytest.bc > > This command works perfectly. > >

Hello, I wrote my own pass which needs to do some loop unrolling. I can perform loop unrolling via opt: opt -mem2reg -loops -loop-simplify -loop-rotate -lcssa -loop-unroll -unroll-count=50 mytest.bc -o mytest.bc This command works perfectly. However, what I really want is to produce the **same behavior** but from my own pass (i.e., I don't want to use opt). I wrote a Module pass which

Hi All, the attached patch performs the splitting in the proposed manner. before applying the patch, please execute svn cp lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopUnroll.cpp lib/Transforms/Utils/UnrollLoop.cpp to make the patch apply and preserve proper history. Transforms/Utils/UnrollLoop.cpp contains the unrollLoop function, which is now used by the LoopUnroll pass. I've also moved the

Hi, I'm having some problems cross-compiling from ppc (OS X) to x86 object files and to ia64, at all. I'd appreciate some advice as to whether or not I'm actually supposed to be able to do this, and what's wrong if so. Here's how I configured it: ../llvm-darcslocal/llvm/configure --with-llvmgccdir=$LLVMGCCDIR --prefix=$HOME/Documents/hpcl/LLVM/install The results work fine

OK, I noticed a few problems with my previous email, so I will boil the question down: What I want to do is compile for x86 and ia64 from darwin. I also want to load my own passes into opt and llc. Should I be using llvmc at all here, or should I be doing something like llvmgcc -> gccas -> opt -> llc ? I've given up on the filetype=obj argument, so now the problem is that llc is

On 16/01/2014, 23:47 , Andrew Trick wrote: > > On Jan 15, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com > <mailto:dnovillo at google.com>> wrote: > >> Chandler also pointed me at the vectorizer, which has its own >> unroller. However, the vectorizer only unrolls enough to serve the >> target, it's not as general as the runtime-triggered

Dear staff, I need to get the line number and file name information of the source code for each instruction in *.bc file. I find that llvm-2.4 can not support "-O1 -g", which means if we are at O1 to O3 optimization level, we can not get any dbg.stoppoint inserted into the LLVM IR. However, our project requires us to get the line number and file name information of

I've done some minimal testing on FreeBSD 8.x i386. When running make check I get: # of expected passes 2188 # of unexpected failures 1 # of expected failures 6 The error output is: Running /usr/cvsports/devel/llvm/work/llvm-2.2/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/dg.exp ... FAIL: /usr/cvsports/devel/llvm/work/llvm-2.2/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/2007-11-05-Crash.ll for

Dear Staff, I am asking this question: given a line of IR code in *.ll file, how can I know the corresponding line number and C/C++ source file name for this IR code? I am investigating some code patterns with LLVM IR, I need to know where this IR code come from (the line number in a source file name). An existing way is using -g option to compile my software, then I can

I am starting to use the sample profiler to analyze new performance opportunities. The loop unroller has popped up in several of the benchmarks I'm running. In particular, libquantum. There is a ~12% opportunity when the runtime unroller is triggered. This helps functions like quantum_sigma_x (http://sourcecodebrowser.com/libquantum/0.2.4/gates_8c_source.html#l00149). The function accounts

On 1/18/17 3:55 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Mikhail Zolotukhin > <mzolotukhin at apple.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Continuing recent efforts in understanding compile time slowdowns, I looked at some historical data: I picked one test and tried to pin-point commits that affected its compile-time. The data I have is not 100%

Ah but how did you compile the clang-4.0 you were using? Does it run faster if you compile it with clang-4.0? :) On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On this topic, I just tried to build ToT with clang-3.9.1 and clang-4.0 > and the total time to complete `ninja clang` on this machine went from > 12m54s to

Hello Matthijs, Separating mechanism from policy is a good thing for the LoopUnroll pass. Instead of moving the policy to a subclass though, I think it'd be better to move the mechanism, the unrollLoop function, out to be a standalone utility function, with the LoopInfo object passed in explicitly. FoldBlockIntoPredecessor would also be good to make into a standalone utility function, since