similar to: [LLVMdev] [RFC] unused argument warning

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Chad Rosier <mcrosier at apple.com> wrote: > All, > I would like to propose a fairly significant change to the unused argument warning (i.e., removing it for the most part), but wanted to get some feedback before investing a great deal of time. In my opinion, the implementation of this warning is overly burdensome to maintain. Worse yet, there are

On Aug 7, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Chad Rosier <mcrosier at apple.com> wrote: >> All, >> I would like to propose a fairly significant change to the unused argument warning (i.e., removing it for the most part), but wanted to get some feedback before investing a great deal of time. In my opinion, the implementation of this

Thanks alot Chad for quick response. Does this means that, we can not use LLVM optimizations except O1, O2, O3, O4 and unroll-loops with clang? One more thing I would like to know that If I want to process multiple modules with opt at the same time like opt -adce *.bc then how is it possible with opt in one go, if I process all the bytecode files within Makefile. Thanks. Shahzad On Thu, Jun

Hi Shahzad, > Is it possible that we can use LLVM optimization beside O1, O2, O3 > along with dragonegg plugin? sure, try this: gcc -fplugin=path/dragonegg.so ...other_options_here... -S -o - -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-emit-ir -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-llvm-ir-optimize=0 | opt -pass1 -pass2 ... Here -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-emit-ir tells it to output LLVM IR rather than target assembler.

Hi Shahzad, > I tried your method and it works fine. What would be the next step to > produce the final executable? I have tried the following but it is > producing an error > > $ gcc -fplugin=/path/to/dragonegg.so -S *.c > -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-emit-ir | opt -adce this won't work because you aren't passing the IR to opt (you need -o - for that if using a pipe) and you

> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Chad Rosier <mcrosier at codeaurora.org> > wrote: >> All, >> About two months ago I posted a patch that hoisted the hottest case >> statement from a switch statement during ISelLowering. >> >> See: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5786 >> >> Sean was rather adamant about using a Huffman tree (and I agree this is

Hi, > I tried it with -o - but its producing an error > > gcc: fatal error: cannot specify -o with -c, -S or -E with multiple files > > What you suggest? what I wrote: >> for F in *.c ; do B=`basename $F .c` ; gcc -fplugin=/path/to/dragonegg.so >> -S -o - $F -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-emit-ir | opt -adce -o $B.ll ; done >> clang *.ll Thanks to the for loop and

Hello Duncan Is it possible that we can use LLVM optimization beside O1, O2, O3 along with dragonegg plugin? Regards Shahzad On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Abdul Wahid Memon <engrwahidmemon at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks alot Chad for these quick and fine responses. > > Regards > > Abdul > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Chad Rosier <mcrosier at apple.com>

> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Chad Rosier <mcrosier at codeaurora.org> > wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Chad Rosier <mcrosier at codeaurora.org> >> > wrote: >> >> All, >> >> About two months ago I posted a patch that hoisted the hottest case >> >> statement from a switch statement during

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 I tried your method and it works fine. What would be the next step to produce the final executable? I have tried the following but it is producing an error $ gcc -fplugin=/path/to/dragonegg.so -S *.c -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-emit-ir | opt -adce $ clang *.s Regards Shahzad On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Shahzad, > >

Hello Duncan On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Shahzad, > > >> I tried your method and it works fine. What would be the next step to >> produce the final executable? I have tried the following but it is >> producing an error >> >> $ gcc -fplugin=/path/to/dragonegg.so -S *.c >>

David/Johan, I would love to claim victory, but I don't think that D34901 catches this case. However, I got interested and threw this together quickly: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35140. This does catch the below case. If people are interested I can add test cases and submit for formal review. FWIW, it does hit about 1/3 of all of the SPEC benchmarks. I haven't done any performance

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

Use the -I<install path>/include . This directory <install path>/include should look something like: clang/ clang-c/ llvm/ llvm-c/ HTH ashok On 7/9/2012 3:15 PM, NY Knicks Fan wrote: > I downloaded the 3.1 LLVM and Clang sources. > > I followed the directions at: http://clang.llvm.org/get_started.html > > I am able to use Clang to compile stuff, but I could

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

The "make install" should collect everything into your <install path>. The <install path> will then have bin, lib and include dirs. On 7/9/2012 3:52 PM, NY Knicks Fan wrote: > Hi Ashok, > > The documentation suggests that I put clang inside of llvm/tools and so > I have two separate include directories. I tried both of them and > neither worked: > > $

All, About two months ago I posted a patch that hoisted the hottest case statement from a switch statement during ISelLowering. See: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5786 Sean was rather adamant about using a Huffman tree (and I agree this is a more complete solution), so I'd like to put a patch together. That being said, I have a few questions. The current switch lowering code sorts based on case

On 7/9/2012 1:42 PM, Chad Rosier wrote: > Have you looked here: http://clang.llvm.org/get_started.html > > Chad > > > On Jul 9, 2012, at 11:33 AM, NY Knicks Fan wrote: > >> I'm trying to do the tutorials at: >> >> https://github.com/loarabia/Clang-tu...i/TutorialOrig >> <https://github.com/loarabia/Clang-tutorial/wiki/TutorialOrig> >>

After messing around with this a bit recently, I've come to the following conclusions: 1. One issue is at what granularity to consider the PGO weightings. For example, should a set of 50 consecutive cases with 65% of the total weight distributed approximately evenly and which can be lowered to a table lookup be handled before the 3 remaining cases that 5%, 10%, and 20% probability,