similar to: [LLVMdev] Function code size estimation

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

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 >

> 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). For the moment - you can just build tools and not the runtime via "make tools-only". -- With best

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 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).

Some additional info can be found at: http://murmurhash.googlepages.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MurmurHash http://www.codeproject.com/KB/recipes/hash_functions.aspx as well as in the patch description itself. Patch and benchmark attached. Gregory -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name:

Hi, 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 /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-cygwin/3.4.4/../../../../i686-pc-cygwin/bin/ld: warning: cannot find entry symbol __cygwin_dll_entry at 12; defaulting to 62fc1000

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

On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 04:43:33PM +0300, Gregory Petrosyan wrote: > 'make TEST=example' works, 'make TEST=jit' and 'make' work too. Any ideas about what is going wrong here? No idea why this stuff was there... Index: TEST.libcalls.Makefile =================================================================== --- TEST.libcalls.Makefile (revision 92512) +++

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: >> It looks to me that this: >> >> make[4]: *** No rule to make target `Output/sse.expandfft.linked.rbc', >> needed by `Output/sse.expandfft.linked.bc'.  Stop. > Well, I have no idea then. makefiles of testsuite are well-known for > such erratic behavior :( For the

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 full program or other variables not accounted > for in a micro-benchmark don't dominate performance? Specifically the > nightly tester includes a number

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: >> LLVM tools and LLVM-GCC I've built seem to work. >> Can it be due to LLVM_SRC_ROOT == LLVM_OBJ_ROOT? > No. This is usually due to absence of llvm-gcc. You need reconfigure > llvm once again with lvm-gcc path added and make sure it was hooked > properly (look into

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 Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > The difference between Analysis and Transforms is *not* about passes, but > about what the code *does*. > > Code for mutating the IR should be in Transforms, and code that analyzes > the IR without mutating it should be in Analysis. This is why, for example, > InstructionSimplify is in

Index: MultiSource/Benchmarks/Bullet/Makefile =================================================================== --- MultiSource/Benchmarks/Bullet/Makefile (revision 92478) +++ MultiSource/Benchmarks/Bullet/Makefile (working copy) @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ LEVEL = ../../../ PROG = bullet -CPPFLAGS += -Iinclude -DNO_TIME +CPPFLAGS += -I$(PROJ_SRC_DIR)/include -DNO_TIME LDFLAGS = -lstdc++ include

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com>, "via llvm-dev" > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Xinliang David Li" <davidxl at google.com> > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 4:54:36 PM

> On Apr 18, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Easwaran Raman" <eraman at google.com> >> To: "via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> >> Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at

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 full program or other variables not accounted >> for in a micro-benchmark don't

Hi, After r256521 - which removes InlineCostAnalysis class - I think there is no strong reason for InlineCost.cpp to be part of the Analysis library. Is it fine to make it part of TransformUtils? I submitted r266477 (which has now been reverted) that made Analysis depend on ProfileData in order to obtain ProfileSummary for the module, but there is an existing dependency of ProfileData on

On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 01:05:56PM -0600, David Greene wrote: > On Tuesday 05 January 2010 12:18, Gregory Petrosyan wrote: > > > > 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? > > > > One new .cpp file in lib/Transforms/IPO + RegisterPass<> + mention pass