similar to: [LLVMdev] Preventing pure function declarations from being removed

Hi Duncan, > Hi Marcus, > >> is there any way to mark a non-referenced function declaration as "used" >> in any way (by using the C++ code generator) so that it will be ignored >> by >> the stripDeadPrototypes and globalDCE pass (and any other pass that >> possibly might remove seemingly unused functions)? > > try adding it to the llvm.used

Hi Duncan, On 7 janv. 2011, at 01:00, Duncan Sands wrote: > LTO is for doing optimizations that are only valid when the module contains > everything that is needed to build the final executable. So adding a flag to > say "not everything is there after all" makes no sense to me. And indeed, everything is there when I call LTO. The flag is not "not everything is there

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 01:55 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Marcus Frenkel > <marcus.frenkel at fernuni-hagen.de> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I've a question about something that's bothering me for quite some time now: why is a llvm::Function seen as a llvm::Value (in a sense that llvm::Function is a

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Marcus Frenkel <marcus.frenkel at fernuni-hagen.de> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 01:55 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Marcus Frenkel >> <marcus.frenkel at fernuni-hagen.de> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I've a

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Marcus Frenkel <marcus.frenkel at fernuni-hagen.de> wrote: > Hi all, > > I've a question about something that's bothering me for quite some time now: why is a llvm::Function seen as a llvm::Value (in a sense that llvm::Function is a subclass of llvm::Value), but llvm::Type is not? Should they not - technically seen - be equal? llvm::Function

Hi all, I've a question about something that's bothering me for quite some time now: why is a llvm::Function seen as a llvm::Value (in a sense that llvm::Function is a subclass of llvm::Value), but llvm::Type is not? Should they not - technically seen - be equal? And to ask a concrete question: is there any way to store a reference to a llvm::Type within the LLVM metadata? As far as I

Hi, Recently, I was looking into the bug #1227. I wanted to check if reordering optimization passes could solve it. To start with, I tried to reproduce the output of llvm-g++ -O3 using the combination of llvm-g++ -O0 and opt with the appropriate passes. However, I was unable to. I use SVN versions of llvm and llvm-gcc-4.2. First, I compile example.cpp (attached; taken from the bug #1227) with: $

I've tripped over this behaviour as well. I ended up working around the problem by creating a new context every time I wanted to link modules together. Which led to me accidently generating one module using two different contexts. Which isn't an error that is detected by module verification. It only causes issues for comparisons like Type equality that compare pointers, and those types of

On May 8, 2008, at 05:50, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > I've attached two patches. The first, pass-comments.diff adds or > improves the file comments for a number of passes. This patch is > slightly interesting. The second, pass-doc.diff is mostly a yank-put > job and updates Passes.html as follows. Thanks, applied!

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:52 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:04 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:41 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> >> wrote: >> > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:52 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>

Hi, I stumbled upon a strange thing regarding types and module linking, which I don't quite get, so maybe someone around here can enlighten me. Consider the following code, which will create 2 modules m1 and m2, and a named structured type %T = { i32 }; m1 contains only a function definition f(%T), m2 contains a function declaration f(%T) and a function definition h(%T), where h will call f

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:41 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Teresa Johnson

On 6 janv. 2011, at 19:00, llvmdev-request at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: >> I'm using LLVM to JIT-compile the XL programming language. I've recently added a whole-program optimization phase that gives excellent results, but I noticed that the StripDeadPrototypesPass was removing all references to my runtime support functions. > > why is that a problem? Because I have pointers to

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > >> On 2015-Jun-03, at 09:56, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > >> On 2015-Jun-04, at 07:10, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith >> <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-Jun-03, at 09:56, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at

Hi Christophe, >>> Apparently, this depends on the oddly-named UnitAtATime parameter. Set it to false. Try again. Suggestion: what about a comment explaining what "UnitAtATime" means :-) >> >> If UnitAtATime is false this means that you are optimizing functions as you are >> generating them, rather than first generating all functions and other globals >>

Hi Dmitri, For what version of VS did you update the project files? Ted On May 17, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Dmitri Makarov wrote: > attached is the diff of vcprojs that need to be changed to fix the VS > build as of revision: 51224. > > I don't know if this catches all the missing bits, but this does build > all the way through. > > > Index: win32/Analysis/Analysis.vcproj

Hi Everyone, Can Someone tell me all the interprocedural optimizations that LLVM 2.1 supports. Thank You, Naineet Patel CSE IITB

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > Since the compiler is always free to delete available_externally > functions, I think you could just add a pass to the -flto=thin pipeline > that deletes all of them (referenced or not) -- it's just a single loop > through all the functions deleting the bodies of those with the right