similar to: [LLVMdev] Registering a custom opt pass as a default one

On Apr 18, 2011, at 6:46 AM, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > Hi all, > > we're working on compile-time instrumentation for ThreadSanitizer (a > data race detector, see http://code.google.com/p/data-race-test and > http://code.google.com/p/data-race-test/wiki/CompileTimeInstrumentation), > which is implemented as an opt plugin that is ran for each client > C/C++ module we

On 26.01.2011, at 04:39, John McCall wrote: > On Jan 24, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Hendrix_ at gmx.net wrote: >> I was using "clang -O3 -S -emit-llvm" got some very optimized output. >> >> Then I did "clang -S -emit-llvm" (without optimization) and wanted to optimized the code in a >> separate pass. The llvm program "opt" did not do anything.

On Jan 27, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Hendrix_ at gmx.net wrote: > OK, I am looking for "LTO"/global optimization. So the function definition will remain "somewhere else" (externally), and the optimizer will find in some other module to possibly inline it later on. > > I am planning to concat all the *.ll (eg "link" the files) and pass them to the

I've pretty much finished exposing all I wanted to llvm-c and the ocaml bindings for the soon to be released 2.7. Does anyone need any other functions exposed before the code freeze on the 7th?

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:53 AM, George Giorgidze <giorgidze at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Erick, > > Can you make the following functions available in llvm-c. > > createStandardFunctionPasses > createStandardModulePasses > createStandardLTOPasses > > Thanks in advance, George This is a little tricky, so I need some advice from the community. First off, I'm

> > > Is there a reason why LLVM's link-time optimization won't work for you? > > http://llvm.org/docs/GoldPlugin.html > http://llvm.org/docs/LinkTimeOptimization.html > > Well the primary motivation to move to LLVM is licensing which is why we also ditched binutils since we can't package gcc for iOS due to the GPL. So in the end the gold plugin wouldn't

On May 26, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Rafael Espindola wrote: > Today support for plugins has been committed to BFD. That is the file > format abstraction library used by binutils. This now works Very nice Rafael! Can you please update the web page to mention this, e.g. in the LinkTimeOptimization.html document and wherever else relevant? -Chris > > $ llvm-gcc -emit-llvm -O2 -c a.c

On 27.01.2011, at 21:12, Devang Patel wrote: > > On Jan 27, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Hendrix_ at gmx.net wrote: > >> OK, I am looking for "LTO"/global optimization. So the function definition will remain "somewhere else" (externally), and the optimizer will find in some other module to possibly inline it later on. >> >> I am planning to concat all the

Erick Tryzelaar <erick.tryzelaar <at> gmail.com> writes: > > I've pretty much finished exposing all I wanted to llvm-c and the > ocaml bindings for the soon to be released 2.7. Does anyone need any > other functions exposed before the code freeze on the 7th? > Hi Erick, Can you make the following functions available in llvm-c. createStandardFunctionPasses

Hi All, After the initial learning curve, we're excited to have put together a completely gcc/binutils-free toolchain based on LLVM. Now that we have things working, we desperately need to optimize the resulting binaries. Our bin files are up to 10x their fully optimized gcc equivalent (1.5k vs 16k). This is for a bare metal ARM based system so this is significant. We're using lld for

Hi All, I am using clang to compile Mysql source code. Because I want to do some inter-procedural analysis, hopefully, I want to get a .o(bitcode) file(a module) containing all possible function declarations and definitions. Is it possible to do that ? Or you guys have some suggestions? To be clear, like Mysql, there is a mysqld routine, which is a major routine. I want to mysqld.o(which is

Hi, How to compile a large project (such as Apache) by using llvm-gcc? I tried to replace CC with llvm-gcc and CFLAGS with -emit-llvm while running configure, but it didn't work. Thank you for your help. -Wink

Hello, As far as I know, the LLVM pass manager only perform at the llvm bytecode level. This means for each program, I have to convert it to a LLVM bytecode by: llvm-gcc -c -emit-llvm test.c then, I can issue the llvm pass manager to invoke my own pass and produce an output as LLVM bytecode, such as: opt -my-pass < test.o > test.new.o After this point, I need to convert it to assembly

r172749 removed Linker/LinkArchives.cpp and Linker/LinkItems.cpp citing: This code is dead, and the "right" way to get this support is to use the platform-specific linker-integrated LTO mechanisms, or the forthcoming LLVM linker. Could someone please expand on what the "right way" is and these LTO mechanisms or where I can find further information? We used several

Hi All, It seems that I can't force some passes to run in llvm-ld as what I can do with opt. $ ~/opt/bin/llvm-ld -reassociate llvm-ld: Unknown command line argument '-reassociate. Try: 'opt/bin/llvm-ld -help' llvm-ld definitely linked with scalaropts, and RegisterPass<ReassociatePass> is in the library. Running with these passes with opt definitely work, but it'll

2009/7/7 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>: > > On May 26, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Rafael Espindola wrote: >> >> Today support for plugins has been committed to BFD. That is the file >> format abstraction library used by binutils. This now works > > Very nice Rafael!  Can you please update the web page to mention this, e.g. > in the LinkTimeOptimization.html

On 27.01.2011, at 21:12, Devang Patel wrote: > > On Jan 27, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Hendrix_ at gmx.net wrote: > >> OK, I am looking for "LTO"/global optimization. So the function definition will remain "somewhere else" (externally), and the optimizer will find in some other module to possibly inline it later on. >> >> I am planning to concat all the

Thanks Nick. I've been pursuing Gao's technique but can't seem to get opt to remove obviously dead code from even the following trivial example: int mult(int a, int b){ return a*b; } int main(void){ return 0; } While mult is never called it still is not removed. I just can't seem to get opt to understand it's seeing the whole program so it can remove this

On Jan 27, 2011, at 12:37 PM, Hendrix_ at gmx.net wrote: > > On 27.01.2011, at 21:12, Devang Patel wrote: > >> >> On Jan 27, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Hendrix_ at gmx.net wrote: >> >>> OK, I am looking for "LTO"/global optimization. So the function definition will remain "somewhere else" (externally), and the optimizer will find in some other

Hi Chris, What functions were you using, and what features of them were you using? If you just need to link individual bit codes together, you can do it in exactly the same way that llvm-link does (using Linker::LinkModules). If you really need features like being able to pull objects out of archives, then you should use an LTO enabled linker (either the system linker on OS X, or gold + the gold