similar to: [LLVMdev] State of SCCVN pass

Hello When I compile LLVM trunk with Visual Studio 2008 and cmake, the build is failing because a new file is not yet added to the build system. Attached you can find a patch which fixes the problem for me. Marius Wachtler Index: lib/Transforms/Scalar/CMakeLists.txt =================================================================== --- lib/Transforms/Scalar/CMakeLists.txt (revision 85194)

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Pekka Nikander <pekka.nikander at nomadiclab.com> wrote: > I am working on heavily optimising unusually static C++ code, and have encountered a situation where I basically want an optimiser that would speculatively unroll a loop to see if the first round of the loop could be optimised further.  (I happen to know that it is possible.)  The previous

Hi, This is Ariel from the Rust team again. I am having another pass ordering issue. Looking at the pass manager at https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/7034870f30320d6fbc74effff539d946018cd00a/lib/Transforms/IPO/PassManagerBuilder.cpp (the early SimplifyCfg now doesn't sink stores anymore! I can't wait until I can get to use that in rustc!) I find that the loop optimization group

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Amos Robinson" <amos.robinson at gmail.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2016 7:39:54 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] GVN pass: does global value numbering remove > duplicate computations in

Hello, I was hoping to get some clarification on the aim of the GVN pass. I have been reading a bit about global value numbering, and from what I understand, there are polynomial time algorithms for removing duplicate computations from loops[1]. I have an example program[2] which computes the sum of an array twice, in two separate accumulators. Here, sum0 and sum1 are both sums of the array A.

Daniel, OK, I see your point. My understanding was that VNDAG is an internal representation, not meant to be used by VN's customers (that should really care for classes of congruency, nothing more). Also, I thought that VN's results are available for a single function at a time. It seems that NewGVN provides access to VNDAGs computed for the whole program -- which enables its usage in

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: >> I'm trying to build LLVM 2.6 (from svn branch release_26) on cygwin >> 1.7, and I have the following errors with both GCC 3.4.4 and GCC 4.3.4 >> >> llvm[2]: Linking Release Loadable Module profile_rt.dll > Cygwin does not support dynamic linking (as any windows target).

This is what I get while trying to run 'make TEST=libcalls' in the top dir of test-suite: make[1]: Entering directory `/home/gregory/thesis/llvm/projects/test-suite/SingleSource' make[2]: Entering directory `/home/gregory/thesis/llvm/projects/test-suite/SingleSource/UnitTests' make[3]: Entering directory

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Gregory Petrosyan > <gregory.petrosyan at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I am working on a pass that finds identical basic blocks and abstracts >> them into functions, in order to reduce code size. >> >> To decide, whether

This makes example Makefile a lot more like actual lib/Transforms/Hello/Makefile, and prevents a lot of errors like "Assertion `Inserted && "Pass registered multiple times!"' failed": http://www.google.com/search?q="Assertion+`Inserted+%26%26+"Pass+registered+multiple+times!"'+failed"&qscrl=1 Gregory -------------- next

This makes example Makefile a lot more like actual lib/Transforms/Hello/Makefile, and prevents a lot of errors like "Assertion `Inserted && "Pass registered multiple times!"' failed": http://www.google.com/search?q="Assertion+`Inserted+%26%26+"Pass+registered+multiple+times!"'+failed"&qscrl=1                Gregory -------------- next

Hi all, here comes the patch for the first wave of Use class size reduction. I have split it into 3 files, corresponding to - header changes - implementation changes - applications This at the moment does not contain the description how the size of the Use class will be reduced from 16 to 12 bytes, I am going to send that in a separate patch. This wave primarily consists of changes that are

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 2:03 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > This is really great to see, as I’ve spent far too much of my life over > the past two years fighting with undocumented assumptions made by GVN. A > couple of quick questions about the new GVN, based on problems I’ve had > with the old one: > > Does it assume that it’s

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Gregory Petrosyan <gregory.petrosyan at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I am working on a pass that finds identical basic blocks and abstracts > them into functions, in order to reduce code size. > > To decide, whether particular basic block group is worth factoring > out, I want to estimate code size of some function that uses one of >

On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 10:31:23AM -0800, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Feb 7, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Gregory Petrosyan wrote: > > >On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 04:51:15PM -0800, Chandler Carruth wrote: > >>While I've not reviewed the patch in too much detail, it looks > >>promising. Can you run some end-to-end benchmarks to make sure that > >>cache pressure in the

Here is the output of the test: ******************** FAIL: LLVM :: Transforms/GVN/null-aliases-nothing.ll (4084 of 5497) ******************** TEST 'LLVM :: Transforms/GVN/null-aliases-nothing.ll' FAILED ******************** Script: -- opt /Users/beresini/Desktop/workspace/downloads/llvm-2.8/test/Transforms/GVN/null-aliases-nothing.ll -gvn -S | FileCheck

On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 11:30:41AM -0600, David Greene wrote: > > I've managed to get my pass listed in 'opt -help' only after removing opt > > subdir from objdir and running make again. Re-configuring LLVM also does > > It sounds like the dependencies for your pass are not correct. Where > did you put it in the LLVM tree and how did you change the Makefiles?

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:38:18 -0400 Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > It also has the problem that there's nothing preventing a > > pass like GVN from merging a !fpmath-decorated operation with an > > undecorated operation, and nothing requiring it to strip > > the !fpmath tag when it does so. (This is a general problem > > with

Hello, I am working on a pass that finds identical basic blocks and abstracts them into functions, in order to reduce code size. To decide, whether particular basic block group is worth factoring out, I want to estimate code size of some function that uses one of basic blocks in question 'as is', and after factoring the basic block into a new function. Can you please suggest a proper

While I've not reviewed the patch in too much detail, it looks promising. Can you run some end-to-end benchmarks to make sure that cache pressure in the full program or other variables not accounted for in a micro-benchmark don't dominate performance? Specifically the nightly tester includes a number of real programs and machinery to measure total compile time. On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 7:09