similar to: [LLVMdev] Loop Unrolling

Dear all, I am doing few experiments to do understand optimization phase interactions. Here is a brief description of my experiements. 1. I picked the list of machine independent optimizations acting on llvm IR (those that are enabled at O3). 2. for each optimzation in the optimization-list a) Compiled the program using 'clang -c O0 -flto program.c' b) opt

Devang, I meant as an end user. -Suresh On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Devang Patel <dpatel at apple.com> wrote: > Suresh, > > > On Jun 15, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Suresh Purini wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> What is the default loop-unroll factor in llvm? How can we specify >> our own unroll-factor? > > Here "we" means end user or a

Hello, I am working on finding good optimization sequences for a given program (phase ordering problem). I have the following setup. 1) The source programs are translated into LLVM IR using -O0 + -scalarrepl. 2) Find an optimization sequence using some strategy which translates the IR generated in the previous step into another IR. 3) Apply llc -O2 and map the IR in to target assembly code.

On 19 June 2011 14:44, Suresh Purini <suresh.purini at gmail.com> wrote: >  I am doing few experiments to do understand optimization phase > interactions. Here is a brief description of my experiements. > > 1. I picked the list of machine independent optimizations acting on > llvm IR (those that are enabled at O3). > 2.  for each optimzation in the optimization-list >  

Dear all, What is the default loop-unroll factor in llvm? How can we specify our own unroll-factor? -Suresh

Hello, When we invoke the loop-unroll pass, the compiler is crashing. From the earlier posts in the mailing-list and from the bug reports, it is a known problem. Is there some one working on this bug? -Suresh

Hello, How can I convert Fortran Programs to llvm IR? Can I use dragonegg to generate an llvm IR and then use rest of the llvm tool set as it is? -Suresh

Suresh, On Jun 15, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Suresh Purini wrote: > Dear all, > > What is the default loop-unroll factor in llvm? How can we specify > our own unroll-factor? Here "we" means end user or a compiler developer ? The threshold is 150, see LoopUnrollPass.cpp - Devang

Dear all, Is there a command line argument which prints the order of application of various analysis/transformation passes on a program using clang? -Suresh

Thanks Chris! That was causing me some confusion. Now it's producing a more meaningful output: poolinit((&l2_GlobalPool), 4u, 4u); poolinit((&l2_GlobalPool1), 4u, 4u); l5_tmp_2E_0_2E_i = poolalloc((&l2_GlobalPool), 4u); l6_tmp_2E_7_2E_i2 = l1_makeList((&l2_GlobalPool1), 0); *(&((struct l_struct_2E_list *)l5_tmp_2E_0_2E_i)->field0) = l6_tmp_2E_7_2E_i2;

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Ricardo wrote: > After applying the PA to it, the output is something like this: ... > My question is: why is this malloc necessary? > ltmp_2_5 = malloc(4u); > Shouldn't be the result a program with this malloc replaced by poolalloc? > Should I include a special flag to achieve this? Ah, sorry, my memory was wrong. The default is to perform the

Thanks for the answer I am trying to test the PA with a program very similar to the one used as an example in the paper located here: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/pubs/2003-04-29-DataStructureAnalysisTR.html The program is as follows: ========================== struct list { struct list *Next; }; struct list *makeList (int Num) { struct list *New = malloc ( sizeof ( struct list ) );

Hello, I have trouble compiling programs using clang on Ubuntu-Natty (getting some linker errors). So I generated a object file using "-c" and then used gcc to generate the final executable. It worked fine. I tried the following method also: $ clang -O0 -c -flto foo.c $ llc foo.o $ gcc foo.o.s It also worked. However the problem is I am getting different runtimes using the two

Hello, If we invoke a transformation pass on an llvm IR file using 'opt', does 'opt' automatically invokes the necessary analysis passes to perform the transformation pass. Thanks in advance. -Suresh

Hello, I was trying to compare the performance of icc, gcc and llvm on the program almabench.c in Coyote Benchmark suite. Here is a line of code from the program. da = da + (ca[np][k] * cos(arga) + sa[np][k] * sin(arga)) * 0.0000001; gcc and icc are performing way better than llvm as they are using 'sincos' library function to compute the sin and the cos of the argument in a