similar to: [LLVMdev] MachineFunction::get

*Vivek Pandya* On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Vivek, > > On Mar 16, 2016, at 1:00 PM, vivek pandya via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > Probably this may be too late to start thinking about this project but I > think this is particularly useful feature for LLVM. >

Hi Abhishek, On Sunday, July 29, 2012 18:32:11 AbhishekR wrote: > It seems like I may have to modify the way MachineFunction is instantiated in MachineFunctionAnalysis. Instead of doing it per Function, it may have to be done for the entire Module by instantiating MachineFunction objects for every Function inside the Module. This might require major changes to the PassManager framework as well.

Hello, Probably this may be too late to start thinking about this project but I think this is particularly useful feature for LLVM. A quick use I can think of this is Implementing Inter-procedural Register Allocation ( for Research purpose ). I have start looking at the code for MachineFunctionPass, I think currently MachineModule class is not available ( the project work will include that ) but

Hi all, I am trying to build a global control flow graph at machine code level. Essentially, I need the handles to the MachineFunction's corresponding to every call site inside a MachineFunction in order to get the handles to MachineBasicBlock's with return statements inside the callee. Currently, the codegen module processes one MachineFunction at a time and hence I can't find a way

Hi all I cant find a clear answer to this anywhere in the release notes or the mailing list. Sorry, if it is mentioned somewhere and I have missed it. Can someone clarify as to if for LLVM 2.6, cmake is optional. http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStartedVS.html The page says - "This step is currently optional as LLVM does still come with a normal Visual Studio solution file, but it is not

Hi all, I like all the ideas so far. Here are my thoughts: I think that fundamentally users of LLVM should be able to opt-in to more aggressive or intensive computation at compile time if they wish. Users' needs differ, and while a 33% increase in clang LTO is absolutely out of the question for some people, for those developing microcontrollers or HPC applications that may well be

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:52 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:04 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at

One thing I want to mention. I believe in the current legacy pass manager implementation only one MachineFunction ever exists at a time. It is deleted before the next MachineFunction is created. This is very important for memory usage. I think the MachineOutliner being in the pipeline may create an exception to this. I think the initial version of retpoline used a ModulePass and that had to be

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:41 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Teresa Johnson

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:41 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> >> wrote: >> > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:52 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>

Hi, One of the long-standing code clean-up bugs in Bugzilla is to extract the Machine* code from the CodeGen library into a separate one, on which CodeGen depends ( http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=1121). I'd like to start working on this. The general approach I'm planning to take is: 1. Identify which code to move. 2. Eliminate all dependencies that the Machine code has on the

Hi, I wrote a machinefunction pass to try to see what's going on. Does it mean that it is target machine dependent pass, like x86? However, after compile it, I found there wasnot command option I registered. I used regular way to do it like RegisterOpt <...> X("... ", "... "), but I cannot see the optimized option when I use opt -load ../../lib/Debug/libxxx.so

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, the second part of my work is to preserve the profiling information through all the transformation passes and make it available to the backend machinery. Attached is an example patch on how I plan to preserve the information for a given transformation pass. And now comes the question into place: whats the best way to attach the profile info

I am new to Linux Administration. I have requirement something like below We have a Windows 2003 AD domain.All our clients are members of this domain. We have a windows based file server which has got 2 network interfaces - Thru one interface it serves files to all clients in domain (10.96.x.x.). 2nd interface is for any systems outside domain (192.168.X.X). From the domain clients we don't

Greetinigs, I am extending llc to include runtime checks for calls (in X86). So a call 'call target' is altered to look like this: [some check] jne error_function call target I've done this by implementing a MachineFunctionPass that is instantiated and added to the PassManager in X86TargetMachine::addPreRegAlloc. In order to create the jne-instruction I need some BasicBlock

Hello, I propose a new syntax for metadata strings (MDStrings) which would allow string data to be spread over multiple lines: !0 = metadata !{metadata !""" hello world """} The special three-quote sequence marks the beginning and end of a multi-line string. This syntax could have a variety of uses, but of particular interest is that it could be used as a basis

Hi, Devang Patel wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Andreas Neustifter > <astifter-llvm at gmx.at> wrote: > >> Okay, so the ProfileInfoLoader is working, but when I examine the executions more closely I see that the ProfileInfo generated by the ProfileInfoLoader is immediately discarded, when the SelectionDAGISel kicks in the "No Profile Info"-Implementation

Hello everyone, we are planning to implement a stronger alias analysis for backend, because e.g. for VLIW architectures, this is our main performance limitation. I would have 2 questions regarding this. I know that backend processes one function at a time, is it somehow possible to do there a whole program analysis, or could you give me some guidelines? Which alias analysis algorithm

On Sep 8, 2009, at 1:27 AM, Andreas Neustifter wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > the second part of my work is to preserve the profiling information > through all the transformation passes and make it available to the > backend machinery. > > Attached is an example patch on how I plan to preserve the information > for a given

I'm trying to access the MachineFunctionInfo structure from a pre-ISel pass. In order to do this I have to get access to the MachineFunction and then call getInfo(). Currently in my pass I request it via: void AMDILBarrierDetect::getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<MachineFunctionAnalysis>(); FunctionPass::getAnalysisUsage(AU); } However, I am getting an