similar to: [LLVMdev] inlining with O3 and O4

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Ramanarayanan, Ramshankar <Ramshankar.Ramanarayanan at amd.com> wrote: > I am wondering how O4 vs O3 do inlining. With O4 it looks like inlining is > done first on each file and then at linking phase. Wouldn’t it be a better > alternative to delay inlining decisions until the link stage? Yes and no. Yes in the sense that you may make some better

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Ramanarayanan, Ramshankar > <Ramshankar.Ramanarayanan at amd.com> wrote: > > I am wondering how O4 vs O3 do inlining. With O4 it looks like inlining > is > > done first on each file and then at linking phase. Wouldn’t it be a > better > >

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adam Nemet" <anemet at apple.com> > To: "Ramshankar Ramanarayanan" <Ramshankar.Ramanarayanan at amd.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 12:20:55 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] proof of concept for a loop fusion pass > > > On Jan 15, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Ramanarayanan,

Hi, We are proposing a loop fusion pass that tries to proactive fuse loops across function call boundaries and arbitrary control flow. http://reviews.llvm.org/D7008 With this pass, we get 103 loop fusions in SPECCPU INT 2006 462.libquantum with rate performance improving close to 2.5X in x86 (results from AMD A10-6700). I took some liberties in patching up some of the code in

Hi, I am a newbie to llvm. I am wondering what approach is used when coming out of SSA form. I also appreciate pointers on where to look in the source code for this phase. Best regards, Ram Ramshankar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120824/87feb1d3/attachment.html>

Hi RamShankar, On top of Rafael mentioned ,Please check with lib/CodeGen/StrongPHIElimination.cpp and the papers like Budimlic, et al. Fast copy coalescing and live-range identification. // In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2002 Conference on Programming Language // Design and Implementation (Berlin, Germany, June 17 - 19, 2002). // PLDI '02. ACM, New York, NY, 25-32. Boissinot,

Trivial hello world program compiles with -O3, but with -O4: (BTW, is there a guide to what different -On mean?) llvm-g++ -O4 Hello.cc -o Hello -v Using built-in specs. Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Configured with: ../llvm-gcc4.2-2.4.source/configure --program-prefix=llvm- --enable-llvm=/home/nbecker/llvm-2.4 --enable-languages=c,c++ Thread model: posix gcc version 4.2.1 (Based on Apple Inc.

On 24 August 2012 02:27, Ramanarayanan, Ramshankar <Ramshankar.Ramanarayanan at amd.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > > I am a newbie to llvm. I am wondering what approach is used when coming out > of SSA form. I also appreciate pointers on where to look in the source code > for this phase. > lib/CodeGen/PHIElimination.cpp is probably what you want. > > Best regards,

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ramshankar Ramanarayanan" <Ramshankar.Ramanarayanan at amd.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Dibyendu Das" <Dibyendu.Das at amd.com> > Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, October 5, 2012 11:00:39 AM > Subject: RE: [LLVMdev]

If -simd option is specified opt could do validity checks, dependency analysis and such and recognize that a loop can be executed in parallel and as the -simd option is specified, convert the data types to vector instructions and add the scaling factor to the loop's iterators. Following this there can be an early machine function pass that sets up processor specific value in all of

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

I was able to also build sparky (http://www.cgl.ucsf.edu/home/sparky/) at -O4 under llvm-gcc-4.2 and llvm-g++-4.2 on darwin with minor patches... --- sparky/c++/_tkinter.c.orig 2009-01-30 22:14:28.000000000 -0500 +++ sparky/c++/_tkinter.c 2009-01-30 22:16:40.000000000 -0500 @@ -3089,6 +3089,9 @@ } } +PyMODINIT_FUNC +init_tkinter(void)

What exactly are the current limitations for using -O4 to create shared libraries with llvm/llvm-gcc-4.2 2.5? I tried a build of xplor-nih at -O4 with llvm-gcc, llvm-g++ and llvm-gfortran. The build fails to link shared libraries with errors such as... Building xplor-nih for platform: Darwin_9_x86 [ -d /Users/howarth/xplor-nih-2.21/bin.Darwin_9_x86/ ] || mkdir

What are the current limitations of using -O4 in llvm-gcc-4.2? As a first test, I compiled the molscript program first as -O3 and it works fine. However if i try to compile the same code as -O4, the build fails with... ar -cru clib.a args.o str_utils.o dynstring.o err.o indent.o vector3.o matrix3.o quaternion.o body3d.o extent3d.o io_utils.o colour.o key_value.o named_data.o double_hash.o

After trying the recommended use of -O4 -fvisibility=hidden to compile xplor-nih with full LTO optimizations, I discovered three symbols become undefined... llvm-gcc-4 -O4 -fvisibility=hidden -o xplor xplor.o \ \ -L. -lxplorCmd -lxplor -L/Users/howarth/xplor-nih-2.21/bin.Darwin_9_x86/ -lfft -lintVar -lvmd -lpy -lswigpy-xplor -ltclXplor -lswigtcl8-xplor -lnmrPot -lcommon -lmarvin \

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 09:57:28AM -0800, Devang Patel wrote: > Hi Jack, > > On Jan 25, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: > > > Doing that changes the error messages into a bus > > error on the darwin linker. > > > Pl. file bugzilla report (or radar) with a reproducible test case so > that we can investigate this linker crash. > > As you

Le 25 janv. 09 à 06:01, Jack Howarth a écrit : > After trying the recommended use of -O4 -fvisibility=hidden to > compile xplor-nih with full LTO optimizations, I discovered three > symbols become undefined... > > llvm-gcc-4 -O4 -fvisibility=hidden -o xplor xplor.o \ > \ > -L. -lxplorCmd -lxplor -L/Users/howarth/xplor-nih-2.21/ > bin.Darwin_9_x86/ -lfft -lintVar

This is compiling the Trunk revision from last Friday: reference out of range from _llvm_regerror (1000437F0) in ../../lib/libLLVMSupport.a(regerror.c.o) to cstring=0 (0) in ../../lib/libLLVMSupport.a(regerror.c.o) ld: rel32 out of range in _llvm_regerror from ../../lib/libLLVMSupport.a(regerror.c.o) clang-3: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see invocation) OS X 10.6,

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

Using -O4 requires support from the system linker, because the files written out are LLVM bitcode files rather than object files. --Owen On Dec 29, 2007, at 11:43 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: > What are the current limitations of using -O4 in > llvm-gcc-4.2? As a first test, I compiled the molscript > program first as -O3 and it works fine. However if i > try to compile the same code