similar to: [LLVMdev] pass statistic

On 3/9/2011 11:26 PM, kecheng at cecs.pdx.edu wrote: > Hi folks, > > I wonder how to get the statistic of which pass has been "really" > applied and which one is not. For instance, I try to apply 20 llvm > passes on a single C source code. But since the precondition of each > pass may not be satisfied (try loop-unrolling to a source code without > loop), some of

Thanks John, this is an easy way to achieve this goal, but I'm wondering if this is the only way? I have around 100 passes. Quoting John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>: > On 6/28/11 11:35 PM, kecheng at cecs.pdx.edu wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Llvm can automatically group a list passes. I want to do some >> experiment to see the difference between grouping

Hi all, Llvm can automatically group a list passes. I want to do some experiment to see the difference between grouping and non-grouping execution. Considering the following example, if I want to apply transformation A, B and C. The execution order is: A.doInitialization(); B.doInitialization(); C.doInitialization(); A.runOnFunction(); B.runOnFunction(); C.runOnFunction();

Eli, Thanks very much for your reply. That's what I want to know. It works for this example. But I usually have to deal with the optimized bytecode with "-O". See the example: ************** C source ************** int h (int j, int i) { int tmp; tmp = j+i+2; return tmp; } +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ .ll file: ; ModuleID = 'simplecase.c' target

Hi, I want to get the mapping between C source's variables and bytecode variables. It seems that llvm doesn't provide this mapping, so I think a walk-around method is to get the instruction's mapping. I have to use llvm-gcc, not clang. Any advice? Thanks. Best, Kecheng 2010-05-13 From: Eli Friedman Date: 2010-05-13 15:38:36 To: Kecheng Cc: llvmdev Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] How

Hi all, When I check the ll code, I found sometimes an operation has one or more "undef" operands. Does that means this operations has been discarded? What I want to check is how to determine which variables have been discarded. If I decide to discard everything that is transitively related to an undef then is that correct? If I implement that algorithm, is there a discard

On 6/28/11 11:35 PM, kecheng at cecs.pdx.edu wrote: > Hi all, > > Llvm can automatically group a list passes. I want to do some > experiment to see the difference between grouping and non-grouping > execution. > Considering the following example, if I want to apply transformation > A, B and C. The execution order is: > A.doInitialization(); >

Hi, I want to know the variable mapping between the source and llvm bytecode. It seems that current llvm debugging information cannot provide this mapping directly. Here is my examples (llvm 2.7). In this exmaple, I want to know the mapping: tmp<--->%4. But current llvm's debugging information can only provide that the instruction "%4 = add nsw i32 %3, 2" is at line 3 in

To Whomever is Interested, I have spent several days searching the web, help files, the R wiki and the archives of this mailing list for a solution to this problem, but nonetheless I apologize in advance if I have missed something obvious. The problem is this; I have a 5-column data frame with about 4.2 million rows, and want to create a new (and hopefully much smaller) data frame that

Hi Kecheng, > But in the doc "Source Level Debugging with LLVM", it shows that llvm > 2.6 could get column number. There's an example in the doc as following: > http://llvm.org/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html you are confusing what LLVM supports, and what a particular LLVM frontend (llvm-gcc) produces. LLVM supports column numbers, but llvm-gcc does not generate them. I

Hi Duncan, But in the doc "Source Level Debugging with LLVM", it shows that llvm 2.6 could get column number. There's an example in the doc as following: http://llvm.org/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html 1. void foo() { 2. int X = 21; 3. int Y = 22; 4. { 5. int Z = 23; 6. Z = X; 7. } 8. X = Y; 9. } Compiled to LLVM, this function would be represented

Thank you, it was what I really was searching for :) However, I don't know if I well understood. I've find this link in the second link which seemed what i was looking for: http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/BuiltinUnreachable.txt .If I put around the code block (inside my function with precondition (x>0 && y>0)) a contruct like that that use __builtin_unreachable: int foo(int

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Niko Zarzani <koni10 at hotmail.it> wrote: > Thank you, it was what I really was searching for :) > > However, I don't know if I well understood. I've find this link in the > second link which seemed what i was looking for: > http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/BuiltinUnreachable.txt . > If I put around the code block (inside my

Hi all,Is there any way to tell LLVM some additional information about the variables in the code in order to make better optimization?For example, if my function has a certain precondition (such as x>0) then it will be possible to better optimize the code given that information (which the compiler does not know).I am new in this field and I don't know if there are ways to tell the compiler

You may want to check this out: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-October/053924.html and also http://llvm.org/PR810 - xi On 10/22/12 6:05 PM, Niko Zarzani wrote: > Hi all, > Is there any way to tell LLVM some additional information about the > variables in the code in order to make better optimization? > For example, if my function has a certain precondition (such

Hi Niko, Do you mean branch prediction, i.e. __builtin_expect [1]? Many compilers support it, I think clang (LLVM's C/C++ frontend) is among them. - D. [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Other-Builtins.html 2012/10/23 Niko Zarzani <koni10 at hotmail.it>: > Hi all, > Is there any way to tell LLVM some additional information about the > variables in the code in order to

Hi Sanjay, You used Alive correctly, of course :) At this moment we cannot give you the best precondition. It’s on the todo list, but it’s not even started yet. It’s a much harder problem to solve. We do have a mode to compute the best set of nsw/nuw/exact attributes in the transformed expression, but it’s not enabled on the web interface yet (InstCombine was missing quite a few cases last

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com > wrote: > Hi Piotr, > > On March 31, 2017 at 9:07:42 AM, Piotr Padlewski > (piotr.padlewski at gmail.com) wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have a question about dereferenceable metadata on load instruction. I > > have a patch (https://reviews.llvm.org/D31539) for LICM that hoists >

Hi, I tried llvm-gcc -g -O0 on several cases, but the column field of meta data always shows zero in created ll code. Does llvm-gcc emit column # info ? Or I should add some option? Thanks in advance. Sheng. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100426/76b52b1f/attachment.html>

This might be hard cases making bad law, but the loop: void f (unsigned short *x, int *l) { int c = *l; int i; for (i = 0; i < c; i++) if (x[i]) x[i]++; } is converted to decrement-and-branch form by LoopStrengthReduce while: void f (unsigned short *x, int *l) { int i; for (i = 0; i < *l; i++) if (x[i]) x[i]++; } isn't.