similar to: [LLVMdev] Safe Passes

Which transformation passes are 'safe', meaning it does not worsens the effectiveness of a later pass or the generated code? I imagine all passes which either removes data or add attributes are included in this list, plus some simplification passes: -adce -argpromotion -constmerge -constprop -deadargelim -dse -functionattrs -globaldce -globalopt -gvn -instcombine -internalize

Hello, I am trying to simplify the CFG of a given code and eliminate the conditionals, even though I will obtain codes that are not semantically equivalent. For example, given a simple loop: for(i=0; i<N; i++){    a[i] = i;     if (i%2==0)       a[i] += 12; } I would keep only the loop, without the if statement: for(i=0; i<N; i++){    a[i] = i; } I can eliminate such conditionals on

Jack Howarth wrote: > I've had better luck compiling all of pymol 1.1r2 with > -O4 on darwin9. Everythink links and there appears to be > no regressions in the resulting code. I take it that LTO > in llvm 2.5 is still limited to dead code elimination, > correct? No. libLTO does the equivalent to opt -internalize -ipsccp -globalopt -constmerge -deadargelim -instcombine

add -basicaa to your command line :) On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Willy WOLFF <willy.mh.wolff at gmail.com> wrote: > I play a bit more with MemoryDependenceAnalysis by wrapping my pass, and > call explicitely BasicAliasAnalysis. Its still using No Alias Analysis. > > How can I let MemoryDependenceAnalysis use BasicAliasAnalysis? > > Please, find attached my pass. >

Does LLVM have loop multiversioning ? it seems it does not with clang++ -O3 -mllvm -debug-pass=Arguments program.c -c bash-4.1$ clang++ -O3 -mllvm -debug-pass=Arguments fast_algorithms.c -c clang-3.6: warning: treating 'c' input as 'c++' when in C++ mode, this behavior is deprecated Pass Arguments: -datalayout -notti -basictti -x86tti -targetlibinfo -no-aa -tbaa -scoped-noalias

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 01:07:07PM -0700, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev wrote: > > > On May 9, 2016, at 10:43 AM, Ricardo Nobre via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm a PhD student doing phase ordering as part of my PhD topic and I would like to ask some questions about LLVM. > > > > Executing the following

Hi all, I would like to know which optimization passes are performed at -O2 by opt. So I used following command: llvm-as < /dev/null | opt -O2 -std-compile-opts -disable-output -debug-pass=Arguments I've got following output for LLVM opt 2.9: Pass Arguments: -no-aa -tbaa -basicaa -simplifycfg -domtree -scalarrepl -early-cse Pass Arguments: -targetlibinfo -no-aa -tbaa -basicaa

Hi, I've been thinking about how to keep the line number with the llvm transform/Analysis passes. Basically, I agree with Chris's notes ( http://www.nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/DebugInfoImprovements.txt), and I will follow his way to turn on the line number information when optimization enabled. Here is a detailed proposal: 1. Introduction At the time of this writing, LLVM's

Hi, I'm a PhD student doing phase ordering as part of my PhD topic and I would like to ask some questions about LLVM. Executing the following command to see what passes does OPT execute when targeting a SPARC V8 processor: /opt/clang+llvm-3.7.1-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-15.10/bin/llvm-as < /dev/null | /opt/clang+llvm-3.7.1-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-15.10/bin/opt -O3 -march=sparc -mcpu=v8

I've developed a working LLVM back-end (based on LLVM 2.6) for a custom architecture with its own tool chain. This tool chain creates stand-alone programs from a single assembly. We used to use GCC, which supported producing a single machine assembly from multiple source files. I modified Clang to accept the architecture, but discovered that clang-cc (or the Clang Tool subclass inside Clang)

I've had better luck compiling all of pymol 1.1r2 with -O4 on darwin9. Everythink links and there appears to be no regressions in the resulting code. I take it that LTO in llvm 2.5 is still limited to dead code elimination, correct? Will LTO ever be extended to inlining across files as well as constant-folding and global data allocation optimizations? Or does the reliance on gcc-4.2 as the

Hi, > If I compile the program using the following command line i.e. > > $ clang -O3 -lm *.c this may be doing link time optimization. > > then > > $ time ./a.out > > real 0m2.606s > user 0m2.584s > sys 0m0.012s > > BUT, if I use all the optimizations enabled with -O3 but specify them > explicity i.e. you can just use "opt -O3"

Hello Duncan Sorry for the mistake. Actually that error occurred when I was compiling all the files at once, NOT in for loop. The for loop is working perfectly as it is dealing with individual files. I have now one new issue. Let me specify it briefly. If I compile the program using the following command line i.e. $ clang -O3 -lm *.c then $ time ./a.out real 0m2.606s user 0m2.584s sys

Hello I need some help here please. If we compile source files directly in to native code: $ clang -O3 -lm *.c then the runtime is like following real 0m2.807s user 0m2.784s sys 0m0.012s and If we emit LLVM bytcode and apply optimizations $ clang -O3 -c -emit-llvm *.c $ llvm-link *.o -o comb.ll $ time lli ./comb.ll then the runtime is real 0m2.671s user 0m2.640s sys 0m0.020s But, if I

Thanks Duncan It was really helpful. Regards Abdul On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi, > > >> If I compile the program using the following command line i.e. >> >> $ clang -O3 -lm *.c > > > this may be doing link time optimization. > > >> >> then >> >> $ time ./a.out >>

Hi Yes, they both are exactly the same. Regards Shahzad On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi, is the comb.ll used here: > > >> $ time lli ./comb.ll >> >> then the runtime is >> >> real    0m2.671s >> user    0m2.640s >> sys     0m0.020s >> >> But, if I convert this same file comb,ll

Hi, I try to use MemoryDependenceAnalysis in a pass to analyse a simple function: void fct (int *restrict*restrict M, int *restrict*restrict L) { S1: M[1][1] = 1; S2: L[2][2] = 2; } When I iterate over MemoryDependenceAnalysis on the S2 statement, I get the load instruction for the first depth of the array, that’s ok. But I get also the load and store for the S1 statement. I assume the

Hi, is the comb.ll used here: > $ time lli ./comb.ll > > then the runtime is > > real 0m2.671s > user 0m2.640s > sys 0m0.020s > > But, if I convert this same file comb,ll in to native binary the same as the comb.ll used here: > $ clang comb.ll ? Ciao, Duncan. > > and execute it, then the runtime increases alot > > $ time ./a.out > > real

Sean Silva via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > No tests fail with the patch below, so I would say it's pretty useless. It > seems that the C bindings are the only user but we can probably just have them > return IPSCCP instead. I don't necessarily think your conclusion is wrong, but the patch isn't proving what you think it's proving. In fact, the

Hi, > Yes, they both are exactly the same. then I don't know what is going on. I suggest you send a copy of comb.ll to the list so that we can see for ourselves. Ciao, Duncan. > > Regards > > Shahzad > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Duncan Sands<baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> Hi, is the comb.ll used here: >> >> >>> $ time lli