similar to: [LLVMdev] How to disable pass grouping(scheduling)

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

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(); >

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

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

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 these pass may not affect the final result. How to know which pass affect and

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

Hello, I'm writing a pass that adds a function prototype to the module during doInitialization() and stores the pointer in a global variable. If I run opt with "-O1" or less, everything works fine. However, If I call opt with "-O2" or "-O3" then as soon as runOnFunction() is called, the pointer seems to be NULL. Here is a code that shows the problem:

Larry, On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Larry Gritz <lg at larrygritz.com> wrote: > I have a whole slew of questions about optimization passes. Answers to any > or all would be extremely helpful: > > How important are doInitialization/doFinalization? Most of the passes do not use them. > I can't detect any difference if I use them or not. Say, if you are writing

I wonder in what cases FunctionPass is better that Pass. For example, addPassesToEmitAssembly takes PassManger and addPassesToJITCompile takes FunctionPassManager. Another question is about FunctionPassManager::run(Function&) and FunctionPass(Function&). The former calls the later, which is fine, but the latter looks like this: bool FunctionPass::run(Function &F) { if

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > I wonder in what cases FunctionPass is better that Pass. For example, > addPassesToEmitAssembly takes PassManger and addPassesToJITCompile takes > FunctionPassManager. Here's a simple way to look at it. Use a Function pass whenever you can. A function pass will always work where a Pass works (it derives from pass as you've noticed),

Dear Sanjoy Das and community. I was tried to fix a bug in the pass InitAllocas from SAFECode. This is a function pass and will insert a prototype of 'llvm.memset.p0i8.i32' in the module at doInitialize() stage of the pass. But, this prototype will be eliminated by strip unused function optimization since there is no call on this function after doInitialization(). Therefore there will be

I have a whole slew of questions about optimization passes. Answers to any or all would be extremely helpful: How important are doInitialization/doFinalization? I can't detect any difference if I use them or not. Why does the function pass manager have doInitialization/doFinalization, but the global pass manager doesn't? If I am applying the function passes to many functions, do I

Thanks. The reason I ask is because I'm looking at some code that does just that. A single FunctionPassManager is constructed with a dummy Module and createStandardFunctionPasses is called on it. The FunctionPassManager cached and run on Functions in other Modules. So far I haven't noticed any problems but I guess that is because the passes added by createStandardFunctionPasses don't

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

On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > > On 13/12/12 18:58, Stephen McGruer wrote: > >> I'm wondering if the documentation for LoopPass >> (http://llvm.org/docs/**WritingAnLLVMPass.html#**LoopPass<http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html#LoopPass>) >> is misleading or >> incorrect (or

Anthony Danalis wrote: > Hello, > > I'm writing a pass that adds a function prototype to the module during > doInitialization() and stores the pointer in a global variable. If I > run opt with "-O1" or less, everything works fine. However, If I call > opt with "-O2" or "-O3" then as soon as runOnFunction() is called, the > pointer

I was using 2.4, but I built 2.5 and it behaves the same. I will test the SVN head too. On Mar 11, 2009, at 10:41 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > Anthony Danalis wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I'm writing a pass that adds a function prototype to the module >> during >> doInitialization() and stores the pointer in a global variable. If I >> run opt with

On 09/23/2011 11:28 AM, Redmond, Paul wrote: > Hi, > > Is it generally safe to cache a FunctionPassManager and reuse it on > modules other than the one it was constructed with (assuming they have > the same target triple)? No. FunctionPass has a pair of methods, doInitialization and doFinalization, which take Module& and are allowed to read or modify it outside runOnFunction.