similar to: [LLVMdev] Optimization Order at O2/O3

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

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 >  

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, 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.

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

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

Hello, I tried to do some small experiments on the loop unroll transformation. Following is the Test Program. I compiled it as follows: $ opt -loop-rotate -debug-only=loop-unroll -loop-unroll -unroll-count=2 test1.o -S -o test1.s ------------------ int a[1024]; int main() { int i, sum=0; for(i=0; i<1024; ++i) sum += a[i]; printf("%d",sum); } ------------------- I got

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

Thanks for the info Teresa, Regards M Suresh From: Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 7:15 PM To: Mani, Suresh <Suresh.Mani at amd.com> Cc: Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Expected behavior of lld during LTO for global symbols (Attr Internal/Common) [CAUTION: External

Hi Teresa, Can you please let me know if there is any update on this issue. Thanks M Suresh From: Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 7:23 PM To: Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> Cc: Mani, Suresh <Suresh.Mani at amd.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Expected behavior of lld during LTO for global symbols

The direct cause of this issue is that, previously lld converted common symbols to defined symbols before passing input files to LTO, and after r360841 they are passed as common symbols to LTO. Making lld to work as before is easy, as we can convert common symbols to defined symbols as before. Here is a patch to do that, and I confirmed that that restores the original behavior for the reported

Hi , This Is 'Suresh M' from AMD compiler team. 1) I obtained the source code of llvm and pool-alloc (relase_32 versions ) using the following commands, svn co http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/branches/release_32 llvm cd llvm/projects svn co http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/poolalloc/branches/release_32 poolalloc 2) Was able to build the binaries and libraries

Can I specify passes that I want run directly to llvm-gcc? I don't want all of -O3, for example. I tried llvm-gcc -raiseallocs ..., but that didn't work. I also tried running cc1 directly and it didn't take -raiseallocs as a parameter either. Duncan Sands wrote: > On Tuesday 28 April 2009 04:02:47 am Ryan M. Lefever wrote: >> I assume that when -O3 (or O2 or O1) is

Hello, I want to study the individual O3 optimizations. For this I am using following commands, but unable to replicate O3 behavior. 1. Documents/clang+llvm-9.0.0-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-18.04/bin/clang -O1 -Xclang -disable-llvm-passes -emit-llvm -S vecsum.c -o vecsum-noopt.ll 2. Documents/clang+llvm-9.0.0-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-18.04/bin/clang -O3 -mllvm -debug-pass=Arguments -emit-llvm -S

Looks like this is indeed related to r360841. In C, there are distinctions between declarations, definitions and tentative definitions. Global variables declared with "extern" are declarations. Global variables that don't have "extern" and have initializers are definitions. If global variables have neither "extern" nor initializers, they are called tentative

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > To: "Zinovy Nis" <zinovy.nis at gmail.com> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "James Molloy" <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" > <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014

Hi , I have an issue during LTO phase of llvm compiler which is as follows, File t3.c --------- #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> // A linked list node struct Node { int data; struct Node* next; struct Node* prev; }; struct Node* head; /* Given a reference (pointer to pointer) to the head of a list and an int, inserts a new node on the front of the list. */

Hi, Does anyone know an easy way to do same optimisations as 'opt -O2' or 'opt -O3' in the JIT. I can do the tedious way: pass_manager->add(createInstructionCombiningPass()); pass_manager->add(createGVNPass()); etc. etc. but I would rather reuse the code in 'opt' to manage the passes. Cheers, Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text

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