similar to: [LLVMdev] inline callsites whose function definitions are in different file?

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote: >  LLVM (2.7 release version) provides 2 implementations for inlining > function callsites: > > - InlineSimple.cpp (-inline):               inline simple callsites > according to its cost analysis > - InlineAlways.cpp (-always-inline):  inline all callsites that are > marked with

On 7/27/2010 12:40 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Chuck Zhao<czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote: >> LLVM (2.7 release version) provides 2 implementations for inlining >> function callsites: >> >> - InlineSimple.cpp (-inline): inline simple callsites >> according to its cost analysis >> - InlineAlways.cpp

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote: > I don't, and the compiler doesn't neither, that is the problem, unless I do > hacking at compile time. > E.g.: > - put all such function's definitions into file1.c > - force to compile file1.c 1st. > - when compiling file2.c: >  . read file1.bc >  . attach to file2's

I still can't build LLBrowse on my Debian5-i386 machine today, The following is a full build console output. I am using LLVM-2.8 release build, with needed wxWidgets and CMake. Thank you Chuck sideshow.eecg>time cmake ../llbrowse -- The C compiler identification is GNU -- The CXX compiler identification is GNU -- Check for working C compiler: /steffan/a/a0/czhao/bin/bin32/gcc -- Check

OK try it now - I checked in a few more fixes. On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote: > I still can't build LLBrowse on my Debian5-i386 machine today, > The following is a full build console output. > I am using LLVM-2.8 release build, with needed wxWidgets and CMake. > > Thank you > > Chuck > > sideshow.eecg>time

Duncan: I am only superficially familiar with LLVM structure. What I am trying to find out is if functions that have a single invocation are still found in the code during the compilation. In Open64 and other compilers, there is an early inlining pass that inlines all procedures that have a single invocation site. The reasoning is that if there is a single call to a procedure, then there is not

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > LLBrowse - a GUI tool which allows you to inspect the contents of LLVM > modules - now runs on Linux and OS X, and it works with both LLVM 2.8 and > current LLVM head. I've updated the docs to include instructions on checking > out and building the code under several different environments, which you

LLBrowse - a GUI tool which allows you to inspect the contents of LLVM modules - now runs on Linux and OS X, and it works with both LLVM 2.8 and current LLVM head. I've updated the docs to include instructions on checking out and building the code under several different environments, which you can read here: http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llbrowse/trunk/doc/LLBrowse.html (the doc also

Hi, My apologies for the trouble. I've disabled building DynamicTypeChecks for now (r138224) and now it builds cleanly on 32bit for me here. As for SAFECode support for 32bit vs 64bit, I believe 32bit should work just fine although I haven't personally tested this. Let me know if you have any further issues/questions. ~Will On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at

LLVMers, I need to intercept all LLVM IR instructions that will write into memory and start to do analysis on these instructions. In addition to StoreInst, what are all other IRs that will write into memory? E.g. char * ptr = malloc(...); ///... //with use(s) of ptr later The LLVM IR for the above code would be: %0 = tail call noalias i8* @malloc(i32 137) nounwind ///... //

John, The release source code (sc-main.tar) won't compile cleanly under Debian6-i386 (gcc/g++: 4.4.5). The compiler back trace is attached. Please fix it/them and repost. Or, 64b system is a requirement? Thank you Chuck llvm[4]: Compiling TypeRuntime.cpp for Release+Asserts build (PIC) cc1plus: warnings being treated as errors

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote: > LLVMers, > > I need to intercept all LLVM IR instructions that will write into memory and > start to do analysis on these instructions. ... > Does that mean any LLVM IR that has a valid result field will be able to > store the result into memory? Yes, if the value ends up getting spilled to the

Dear All, We have a new release of Clang with SAFECode technology for detecting memory safety errors. Memory safety checking (SAFECode for short) can be turned on with a single command line switch to clang/clang++. The SAFECode techniques do not change the behavior of the clang/clang++ compilers in any way when the switch is turned off, so this can be used as a drop-in replacement for

I am studying the Transform/Scalar/LICM.cpp pass, and wrote a simple test program to validate. void testLICM(void){ int i,N=100; int data; for(i=0;i<N;i++){ data = 1; printf("i: %d\n",i); } printf("data: %d\n", data); } I expect the "data=1" will be moved out of loop (either hoist or sink). However, to my surprise, that statement

could someone recommend me an application that is able to join ogg vorbis files into one? i searched the net in vain so far. thanks indeed, figyu --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.

I think the problem is also platform dependent, and I have been trying to come up with the known-good list of build gcc/g++ on various platforms for a long time. E.g., on Debian-32 5.0.5 (Intel): gcc-4.0.4, gcc-4.1.2 are bad, gcc-4.2.4 seems to be fine. on Debian-64 5.0.4 (Intel): the default gcc (4.3.2) seems to be fine. We may want to cover this for a wide range of possible platforms. The

I am working on implementing an algorithm that needs one of the standard Data Flow Analysis as its precondition (VeryBusyExpression to be precise). Thus I take a look into LLVM (2.8) and check their availability. I do expect to see all of the following standard ones: - Reaching Definition (RD) - Live Variable (LV) - Available Expression (AE) - Very Busy Expression (VBE) To my surprise, I

If I turn on one of the llvm interprocedural optimizations without turning on the analysis it uses. will the analysis be turned on automatically ? Thanks Xin

There is/are implicit dependency for the optimization on its analysis. So, if you run the optimization, the analysis will be turned on implicitly, through the PassManager. Chuck On 2/12/2012 10:10 AM, Xin Tong wrote: > If I turn on one of the llvm interprocedural optimizations without > turning on the analysis it uses. will the analysis be turned on > automatically ? > > Thanks

I don't think licm looks at loads/stores to allocas -- these are usually handled by mem2reg which happens much earlier (if you run your example with -mem2reg you'll see it already deleted the store). In fact, licm sinks the stores by converting them to stores to allocas first and running mem2reg on that. If you change your example to void testLICM(int* restrict p) { int i,N=100;