similar to: [LLVMdev] Debug info for variables when optimizing

Hi Martijn, On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:25 AM, Martijn <martijn at martijnrutten.com> wrote: >> >> Without mem2reg pass, you're unlikely to get much optimization done on your IR. > > Clear, thanks! I presume the mem2reg pass is also essential in the > CLang frontend, so CLang is not an alternative to llvm-gcc to keep > more debug information? Yes. > For the

Hi Martijn On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:52 AM, Martijn <martijn at martijnrutten.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I use llvm and llvm-gcc as a C-to-C transformation tool using a > modified version of the c backend, and rely on llvm debug instructions > to link back to the original source code. > > Does anyone know how to get detailed line number and variable debug > information

Hi Devang, >> I use llvm and llvm-gcc as a C-to-C transformation tool using a >> modified version of the c backend, and rely on llvm debug instructions >> to link back to the original source code. >> >> Does anyone know how to get detailed line number and variable debug >> information at optimization levels beyond O0? >> >> Currently, I extract this

On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:29 PM, Török Edwin wrote: > Hi Dan, > I am actually more interested in Analysis working in presence of debug > info, but in order to get any meaningful results, you need to run some > transformations, at least GVN, otherwise loops aren't transformed to > canonical form either. Right. > So we could: > - teach GVN that a dependency on a debug

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>wrote: > On 05/14/2014 06:02 PM, Akira Hatanaka wrote: > > I would like to get feedback from the community on how I can speed up > the compilation of a function that has one huge basic block consisting of > over 150K instructions. It takes about 10 minutes for clang to produce the > object file

On 2008-11-03 12:33, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:29 PM, Török Edwin wrote: > >> Hi Dan, >> I am actually more interested in Analysis working in presence of debug >> info, but in order to get any meaningful results, you need to run some >> transformations, at least GVN, otherwise loops aren't transformed to >> canonical form either.

On Jul 8, 2008, at 3:33 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been fiddling around with debug info generated by clang, with > the goal of > propagating line number info to our custom backend (which is not an > llvm > backend, but does use llvm IR as its input). Cool. > I've created a small pass which strips all debug info except for > stop

I did find this note from 2004 that references a LoopFusion pass, but I can't find it in the source code: http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/LoopOptimizerNotes.txt A little background - I'm working on a SIMD runtime, where I have a scalar program but need to execute it on multiple independent data elements. One approach is to generate a loop for each operation, then rely on the

Hi All, I'd like to propose some extensions to LLVM that will make it substantially faster at manipulating debug info, and will make the general annotation mechanisms in LLVM much richer: http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/EmbeddedMetadata.txt Thoughts welcome, -Chris

On 2/26/13 8:06 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Justin, > >> an alloca outside of the entry block might be inside a loop, in >> which case the >> semantics are that it would allocate more stack space on every >> loop iteration. >> I think some of the optimizers that run later try to move allocas >> into the entry >> block if possible,

Hi! I created a bug report (https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23712) for this failure but then I realized that my approach may be wrong. The following D source contains a lazy variable: void bar(lazy bool val) { val(); } The lazy variable val is translated to a delegate. The signature and the first IR lines are: define void @_D7opover23barFLbZv({ i8*, i1 (i8*)* } %val_arg) #0 {

Hi, I've been thinking about how to keep the line number with the llvm transform/Analysis passes. Basically, I agree with Chris's notes ( http://www.nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/DebugInfoImprovements.txt), and I will follow his way to turn on the line number information when optimization enabled. Here is a detailed proposal: 1. Introduction At the time of this writing, LLVM's

On Wed, 21 May 2008, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Thanks for the detailed explanations. I have a few remaining questions: > > Am I correct that ScalarReplAggregates is hardly more expensive than Mem2Reg > and therefore generally preferable? Right. > What would be the code quality implications of using "-dce -simplifycfg" > instead of -adce? As far as I understand the

[Moving discussion to LLVMdev] On 2008-10-31 21:55, Dan Gohman wrote: > Hi Török, > > @llvm.dbg.stoppoint actually does read and write memory, in a > sense. It's a point where a user could stop in a debugger, and > use the debugger to both read and write memory. If the optimizers > are allowed to reorder or delete memory operations, these > intrinsics will become

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On May 20, 2008, at 8:57 AM, David Greene wrote: > >> On Tuesday 20 May 2008 07:03, Nicolas Capens wrote: >> >>> 1) Does ScalarReplAggregates totally superscede >>> PromoteMemoryToRegister? I >> >> Nope, they are different. Mem2Reg is really important if you

I would like to get feedback from the community on how I can speed up the compilation of a function that has one huge basic block consisting of over 150K instructions. It takes about 10 minutes for clang to produce the object file and the function that is taking up the majority of the time is LoadAndStorePromoter::run, which is called when SROA is run: // Otherwise, we have mixed loads and

I chatted with Chandler in person and came up with what I think is a much simpler design than my previous design in the thread titled "RFC: Introduce DW_OP_LLVM_memory to describe variables in memory with dbg.value". The crux of the problem in that thread is that we need a representation, particularly in the middle-end, to describe a variables address, at a particular program point.

I did gathered aggregate statistics reported by “-stats” over the ~400 test files. The following table summarizes the impact. The first column is the sum where the new analysis is enabled, the second column is the delta from baseline where no CFL alias analysis is performed. I am not experienced enough to know which of these are “good” or “bad” indicators. —david 72,250 685 SLP

> On Mar 14, 2017, at 3:02 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 11, 2017, at 4:30 PM, Moritz Angermann via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Matthias, >> >> what I’m observing right now is that replacing opt+llc with an clang invocation, and >> subsequently fewer intermediate files,

On 03/02/2013 08:44 PM, Tobias Grosser wrote: > If the use of ivdep is correct, it seems necessary to _not_ annotate the loads > and stores from and to 't'. Only after 't' is moved into a register, the loop is > actually parallel on the IR level. I didn't realize this is a problem in general because in pocl we explicitly "privatize" the OpenCL C kernel