similar to: [LLVMdev] self-hosting failure

There have been a couple problems recently, but I don't recognize this. Please see if you can minimize it and get a test case. You can run with 'make VERBOSE=1' to get the failing compile command. I then usually try -emit-llvm to see if the .bc output reproduces the error (with llc). The full story is a lot more complicated, I can give more details about things to try if you can't

Hello, I've encountered a problem similar to 'lost-copy' when using the StrongPhiElimination and wonder whether it is a incompatibility issue between the two different algorithms used in StrongPhiElimination.cpp. The StrongPhiElimination is mostly based on the algorithm in Zoran Budimilic et al's "Fast Copy Coalescing and Live-Range Identification" ([1]), while the

Hi, on http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#requirements you say you want to know about problems compiling llvm with gcc. I just tried compiling llvm and clang, using ./configure; make, and I got the following error, llvm[2]: Compiling StrongPHIElimination.cpp for Debug build StrongPHIElimination.cpp:1051: internal compiler error: in value_format, at dwarf2out.c:7218 Please submit a

Hi, I have a question regarding StrongPHIElimination. With (weak) PHIElimination, register classes seems to take care of themselves, but with the Strong version, I get illegal virtual register for instruction. In this testcase, I define the PHI operands into a bigger (super) RC, than what the using MI can handle. Weak PHI elim handled this by copying the PHI operands into the right RC. The

Hello, I am implementing a code transformation that would heavily benefit from the CodeGen/StrongPHIElimination pass, but on the two bytecode files I've tested it on so far llc segfaults on both. I see there have been no substantive changes to this code since the middle of last year. Could someone please tell me what the status of this pass is? Thank you. Marc -------------- next part

On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:03 PM, Cameron Zwarich <zwarich at apple.com> wrote: > >> How much of the work is done here? I'd be happy to do the phi elimination part, since I basically did that for StrongPhiElimination (RIP). > > Any help would be appreciated. > > I did a bit of the

On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:03 PM, Cameron Zwarich <zwarich at apple.com> wrote: > How much of the work is done here? I'd be happy to do the phi elimination part, since I basically did that for StrongPhiElimination (RIP). Any help would be appreciated. I did a bit of the easy stuff in 2-addr, it has a LIS = getAnalysisIfAvailable<LiveIntervals>() member that it sometimes updates. It

I'm the person who wrote it, and it's not really maintained, as we decided we wanted to go in a different direction long-term by having fewer passes making independent coalescing decisions rather than more. At the time I stopped working on it, it worked fine on x86 but caused problems with armv7 NEON code. If you file a PR with a test case, I am happy to take a quick look and try to fix

I will try to make a standalone test case but the one that is failing uses a custom back end, so it's not really portable. So is the plan to have the strong PHI elimination behavior rolled into other passes? Andrew On 06/20/2012 06:54 PM, Cameron Zwarich wrote: > I'm the person who wrote it, and it's not really maintained, as we decided we wanted to go in a different direction

This is release_50 branch of git, sha1: f1d5723be3f9456a6b16cdf687847ac2918846de Using gcc 7.2.0 from homebrew. $ CC=/usr/local/opt/gcc/bin/x86_64-apple-darwin16.7.0-gcc-7 CXX=/usr/local/opt/gcc/bin/x86_64-apple-darwin16.7.0-g++-7 cmake .. -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/Users/andy/local/llvm5 -DCMAKE_PREFIX_PATH=/Users/andy/local/llvm5 $ make VERBOSE=1 [ 92%] Linking CXX

How much of the work is done here? I'd be happy to do the phi elimination part, since I basically did that for StrongPhiElimination (RIP). IIRC you run into a lot of problems with NEON subregister defs, which might be fixed by your new direct LiveIntervals implementation. Cameron On Feb 8, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > I just enabled a new

Hi RamShankar, On top of Rafael mentioned ,Please check with lib/CodeGen/StrongPHIElimination.cpp and the papers like Budimlic, et al. Fast copy coalescing and live-range identification. // In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2002 Conference on Programming Language // Design and Implementation (Berlin, Germany, June 17 - 19, 2002). // PLDI '02. ACM, New York, NY, 25-32. Boissinot,

On Apr 13, 2008, at 1:28 PM, Török Edwin wrote: > Hi, > > In PR2193 LiveVariables runs out of memory on a 512M limit, after > processing 11557 basicblocks. > VirtRegInfo has ~180000 entries with ~700 bytes each. > If I give it more memory (1.5G) it runs out of memory in LiveInterval. Some of the information kept by LiveVariables are somewhat redundant and can be removed. I

Dear LLVM, I'm trying to understand why opt tool does not know some of the registered passes, for example, -targetpassconfig, -gc-lowering, -unreachableblockelim, -unreachableblockelim, -stack-protector, -machinemoduleinfo. This prevents me from using bugpoint to reduce the crash in backend. As I understand, they should be registered and available through the command line in the same way as

Evan Cheng wrote: > On Apr 13, 2008, at 1:28 PM, Török Edwin wrote: > > >> Hi, >> >> In PR2193 LiveVariables runs out of memory on a 512M limit, after >> processing 11557 basicblocks. >> VirtRegInfo has ~180000 entries with ~700 bytes each. >> If I give it more memory (1.5G) it runs out of memory in LiveInterval. >> > > Some of the

Hi Duncan, Is it correct that opt does not understand codegen passes, but llc understands both analysis/transformation and codegen passes? I would like to modify bugpoint to work on this end. Thanks, - D. 2012/6/29 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr>: > Hi Dima, > >> I'm trying to understand why opt tool does not know some of the >> registered passes, for example,

Hi Dima, > I'm trying to understand why opt tool does not know some of the > registered passes, for example, -targetpassconfig, -gc-lowering, > -unreachableblockelim, -unreachableblockelim, -stack-protector, > -machinemoduleinfo. This prevents me from using bugpoint to reduce the > crash in backend. As I understand, they should be registered and > available through the

Hi Dmitry, > Is it correct that opt does not understand codegen passes, but llc > understands both analysis/transformation and codegen passes? no. Ciao, Duncan. I would > like to modify bugpoint to work on this end. > > Thanks, > - D. > > 2012/6/29 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr>: >> Hi Dima, >> >>> I'm trying to understand why opt

What's the purpose of StrongPhiElimination pass? The PhiElimination pass creates a lot of copies, but the standard register allocator cleans them up fairly well. Is it for use with alternative register allocators or would it actually help the standard register allocator if it were finished? Cameron

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Qingan Li <ww345ww at gmail.com> Date: 2011/5/30 Subject: To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Hi, I wrote an analysis pass, myPass, inherited from both ModulePass and ProfileInfo, and this pass requires the CallGraph, i.e., * class myPass : public ModulePass, public ProfileInfo { ...};* * void myPass::getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const