similar to: [LLVMdev] opt -debug option not supported on llvm-2.8 release

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

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

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

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

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

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 "always_inline" attribute. They are both subclasses of Inline.cpp that assumes the function's definition (body) is

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 ///... //

Please unsubscribe me from this list. Sujatha Gurumurthy Staffing Consultant/Talent Advisor UMG - Ultra Mobile Group sujatha.gurumurthy at intel.com US ERP Manager Interested in Employee Referral Program Visit referral.intel.com/ Intel USA Employee Referral Program Group 100 Best Companies to Work For 2011: Intel - INTC - from FORTUNE -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at

Hey Chuck, I'm afraid I can't reproduce your error but...a problem you may run into later is that opt will complain with opt: llvm/lib/VMCore/Pass.cpp:149: void<unnamed>::PassRegistrar::RegisterPass(const llvm::PassInfo&): Assertion `Inserted && "Pass registered multiple times!"' failed. Aborted I "fixed" this by replacing the LLVMLIBS line in

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;

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

While learning to write LLVM passes and following the precise instructions under http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html, <http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html> I got this error when loading the hello pass to run the test program: opt -load ./Release/lib/Hello.so -hello < test/test.bc > /dev/null Error opening './Release/lib/Hello.so': ./Release/lib/Hello.so:

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

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 am having difficulty in replicating a sequence of instructions (2+, with def-use dependencies within) and inserting them at a different location. I have tried a few different approaches (IRBuilder, new Instruction(), I->clone(), insertBefore/insertAfter,etc.), all leading to the same error msg: "Instruction doesn't dominate all uses" The DevList has a few previous

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

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

Can't read your paper because the permission is not set. Chuck On 2/25/2011 12:16 PM, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote: > Hi, Andrey, > > sorry for the delay: I made a page with the code available for > download: > http://homepages.dcc.ufmg.br/~douglas/projects/RangeAnalysis/RangeAnalysis.html >