similar to: [LLVMdev] CodeGenOpt

On Feb 23, 2011, at 1:49 PM, David Greene wrote: > The existing CodeGenOpt is not flexible enough for our needs. Our > customers want to be able to control the optimization level at a fine > grain, so we provide them separate dials for general optimization, fp > optimization and memory hierarchy optimization. > > I would like to replace the existing CodeGenOpt::Level enum with

Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: >> class CodeGenOpt { >> ... >> public >> getOptLevel() ...; >> getFPLevel() ...; >> getMemLevel() ...; >> }; >> >> Does this sound reasonable? > > I don't think that this is the right way to go. Higher level > decisions like that should affect your choice of passes to

On Feb 24, 2011, at 8:14 AM, David A. Greene wrote: > Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: > >>> class CodeGenOpt { >>> ... >>> public >>> getOptLevel() ...; >>> getFPLevel() ...; >>> getMemLevel() ...; >>> }; >>> >>> Does this sound reasonable? >> >> I don't think that this is

Here is a problem scenario. I want to enable a backend pass at -O2 or above. if (TM->getOptLevel() >= CodeGenOpt::Default) addPass(&xxxxx); This pass will be run at -O1 too since clang is creating the TargetMachine with CodeGenOpt::Default for -O1. --Sumanth G -----Original Message----- From: mehdi.amini at apple.com [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com] Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017

getOptLevel() gets the level from TargetMachine which is created by the Backendutil in clang with either "Default", "None" or "Aggressive". Threre is no correspondence for "Less". This boils down to , if I pass "-O1", the Target Machine is created with CodeGenOpt::Default. I am available on IRC @ sgundapa. -----Original Message----- From:

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Mehdi > Amini via llvm-dev > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 11:10 AM > To: Sumanth Gundapaneni > Cc: LLVM Developers > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] LLVMTargetMachine with optimization level passed > from clang. > > > > On Jan 6, 2017, at 10:56 AM, Sumanth

I want the optimization to be turned on at -O1 and above. In my case, it is a target independent back-end pass. (Eg: MachinePipeliner) On 2017-01-04 18:10, Mehdi Amini wrote: >> On Jan 4, 2017, at 4:03 PM, Sumanth Gundapaneni via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> I see the BackendUtil.cpp of Clang creates the TargetMachine with >> the

Hi Lang, On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 23:26, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: >> I also get this message: >> JIT session error: Symbols not found: { raise_error } > > > Ahh -- I see the problem. The DynamicLibrarySearchGenerator is using the getAddressOfSymbol method, which (under the hood) is basically issuing an appropriate dlsym lookup, and that does not find

Amara, first, thank you for answering. but I found expandPsuedo instructions actually happens before post-RA, like the following code showing: your approach is a little hacky, right? : ) // Expand pseudo instructions before second scheduling pass. addPass(&ExpandPostRAPseudosID); printAndVerify("After ExpandPostRAPseudos"); // Run pre-sched2 passes. if (addPreSched2())

On 1/7/2013 2:15 PM, Xu Liu wrote: > > This would be ideal. How can I do the instrumentation pass after the > instruction scheduling? You could derive your own class from TargetPassConfig, and add the annotation pass in YourDerivedTargetPassConfig::addPreEmitPass. This will add your annotation pass very late, just before the final code is emitted. If you're using the X86 target,

What I meant was to write your own expansion pass and run it after the scheduler passes, e.g. in the pre-emit stage. > if (addPreEmitPass()) printAndVerify("After PreEmit passes") Though if it's too hacky for you then fair enough. Amara On 23 November 2013 03:17, Liu Xin <navy.xliu at gmail.com> wrote: > Amara, > > first, thank you for answering. but I found

Hi Lang, On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 22:03, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > When you say your code is not getting optimized, do you mean that IR optimizations are not being applied, or that codegen optimizations are not being applied? > > What do you see if you dump the modules before/after running the pass manager on them, like this: > > dbgs() << "Before

Hi, So, I run my pass in X86 target with llc command and it printed out "hello****". Now I am trying to do the same pass for ARM target. So I did exactly what I did for X86 as mentioned in my previous posts. When I run the following command: llc -march=arm test.ll -o test nothing prints out. I did the same for MIPS target too and I got no result. Can anyone tell me what I'm doing

I think this after a second. I got your point. I can define a pseudo instruction for an instr-pair and expand it after post-RA-sched. as you said, in preEmitPass. The original intrinsic can also be kept. I just convert the intrinsic to pseudo instruction in TargetLower. Thank you for your enlightening suggestion! thanks, --lx On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Amara Emerson <amara.emerson at

Yes, I have done exactly the same. The wawanalyzer is the same. I changed ARM.h and ARMTargetMachine.cpp in the tager/arm folder. then I make tool/llc and lib folder. On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:55 AM, John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/17/15 12:16 AM, fateme Hoseini via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi, > So, I run my pass in X86 target with llc command and it printed

Hi, I found some different discrepancy on how Subtarget is created between some arch specific TargetMachine constructor. For example, for BPF/Lanai: BPFTargetMachine::BPFTargetMachine(const Target &T, const Triple &TT, StringRef CPU, StringRef FS, const TargetOptions &Options,

I checked recent revisions 138624 and 138620 and both produce this log with gcc-4.6.0 on FreeBSD-8.2-STABLE amd64: gmake[2]: Entering directory `/usr/home/yuri/llvm-svn/llvm-objects/lib/CodeGen' llvm[2]: Compiling LLVMTargetMachine.cpp for Release build /usr/home/yuri/llvm-svn/llvm/lib/CodeGen/LLVMTargetMachine.cpp:253:3: error: ‘AsmStreamer’ does not name a type

I see the BackendUtil.cpp of Clang creates the TargetMachine with the optimization level based on below mentioned logic CodeGenOpt::Level OptLevel = CodeGenOpt::Default; switch (CodeGenOpts.OptimizationLevel) { default: break; case 0: OptLevel = CodeGenOpt::None; break; case 3: OptLevel = CodeGenOpt::Aggressive; break; } As per my understanding, the correspondence between

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Olivier Meurant <meurant.olivier at gmail.com> wrote: > New patch taking Eli's comments into account. Comments inline. If you have commit access, I'd fire away. If not, I can. diff --git include/llvm/MC/MCAssembler.h include/llvm/MC/MCAssembler.h index 07ca070..afff96e 100644 --- include/llvm/MC/MCAssembler.h +++ include/llvm/MC/MCAssembler.h

Well, 'optnone' is already not identical to -O0, and given the nature of things, probably can't be; but I am persuaded that it's reasonable for it to honor the -fast-isel option as a debugging tactic. I'll take an AI to make this happen. Thanks, --paulr P.S. One nit, the "O0 + optnone" case should not have an asterisk, the FastISel flag is not manipulated if the opt