similar to: [LLVMdev] Execution Engine: CodeGenOpt level

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of nlamee at cs.mcgill.ca > Subject: [LLVMdev] Execution Engine: CodeGenOpt level > How can I dynamically change the code generation optimization level (e.g., > None) of a JIT in other to recompile a function with a new optimization > level (e.g., Default)? We set the optimization level with a

Hello! I'm using LLVM's JIT in my project. Is there any way to view assembly code of functions it generates without disassembling them from the memory?

When using LLVM as a JIT compiler, you can use module.dump() to show the generated intermediate code, which is good. Is there similarly a programmatic way to show the generated x64 machine code in assembly format? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160406/c7d22dab/attachment.html>

> How can I dynamically change the code generation optimization level (e.g., > None) of a JIT in other to recompile a function with a new optimization > level (e.g., Default)? From the source code I'm reading, you might have to creat another JIT with different opt level. Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer Systems Lab, Institute of Information Science, Academia

Neat approach, I think. So you set PassManagers's Opt level rather then ExecutionEngine's one? Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer Systems Lab, Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica, Taiwan (R.O.C.) Tel:886-2-2788-3799 #1667 Homepage: http://people.cs.nctu.edu.tw/~chenwj

> From: 陳韋任 [mailto:chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw] > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Execution Engine: CodeGenOpt level > So you set PassManagers's Opt level rather then ExecutionEngine's one? That's correct. I have no idea what difference doing one or the other (or both) makes. - Chuck THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus

Hi Chenwj, Thank you for your response. The problem with this approach is that global mappings have to be recreated in the new JIT. Can this be somehow avoided? Best regards, Nurudeen. On Thu, March 22, 2012 10:15 pm, 陳韋任 wrote: >> How can I dynamically change the code generation optimization level >> (e.g., >> None) of a JIT in other to recompile a function with a new

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com>wrote: > >> PS. Should we move the discussion to cfe-commits or it's ok to >> continue the review process here? >> > > For future reference, please send patches which touch both LLVM and Clang

On Nov 29, 2011, at 11:26 PM, Alexander Potapenko wrote: >> >> Alex, >> Now, the patch is actually a bit confusing to me. >> EP_AlwaysEnabled should mean "works with O0 after inliner and with >= O1 >> somewhere late", but it doesn't look like it works this way (otherwise, you >> wouldn't need to call PMBuilder.addExtension twice). >>

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: >> >> Agreed. Although I assume you mean invoke the new pass under a >> ThinLTO-only option so that avail extern are not dropped in the >> compile pass before the LTO link? > > > No, this pass

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > > Personally, I think the right approach is to add a bool to > createGlobalDCEPass defaulting to true named something like > IsAfterInlining. In most standard pass pipelines, GlobalDCE runs after > inlining for obvious reasons, so the default makes sense. The special case > is

At the moment OpenStack uses kpartx and nbd to resize filesystems and inject files to guests. I sincerely hope they don't allow untrusted users to upload guest images / AMIs :-( To fix this I'm looking into adding libguestfs support as an optional backend in OpenStack. The only missing feature in libguestfs is the ability to call tune2fs on a filesystem. This patch series adds tune2fs

> > Alex, > Now, the patch is actually a bit confusing to me. > EP_AlwaysEnabled should mean "works with O0 after inliner and with >= O1 > somewhere late", but it doesn't look like it works this way (otherwise, you > wouldn't need to call PMBuilder.addExtension twice). > ? This was actually my question to Devang. Any other suggestions for the EP name?

+cfe-commits (as the patch touches both llvm and clang) On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Devang Patel <dpatel at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 29, 2011, at 11:26 PM, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > > >> > >> Alex, > >> Now, the patch is actually a bit confusing to me. > >> EP_AlwaysEnabled should mean "works with O0 after inliner and with >=

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > +cfe-commits (as the patch touches both llvm and clang) > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Devang Patel <dpatel at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Nov 29, 2011, at 11:26 PM, Alexander Potapenko wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Alex, >> >> Now, the

> >> + EP_EnabledOnOptLevel0 > > I'd rename this as EP_AlwaysEnabled > Renamed, see the attachment. But note that one needs to add his pass at two extension points: at O0 and wherever else he wanted to add it. Won't such a name confuse the user? E.g. he may think that just adding a pass as "EP_AlwaysEnabled" should be enough to have it at any optimization

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com>wrote: > PS. Should we move the discussion to cfe-commits or it's ok to > continue the review process here? > For future reference, please send patches which touch both LLVM and Clang to llvm-commits and cfe-commits. However, looking at the Clang side of the patch, it is totally fine. =D --------------

? stato filtrato un testo allegato il cui set di caratteri non era indicato... Nome: non disponibile URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/20100304/8595d7e1/attachment.pl>

Andy and I briefly discussed this the other day, we have not yet got chance to list a detailed pass order for the pre- and post- IPO scalar optimizations. This is wish-list in our mind: pre-IPO: based on the ordering he propose, get rid of the inlining (or just inline tiny func), get rid of all loop xforms... post-IPO: get rid of inlining, or maybe we still need it, only

You might find RedHat's CVE page on this useful: https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/cve-2023-48795 On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:04?AM Kaushal Shriyan <kaushalshriyan at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I have the SSH Terrapin Prefix Truncation Weakness on Red Hat Enterprise > Linux release 8.7 (Ootpa). The details are as follows. > > # rpm -qa | grep openssh >