similar to: [LLVMdev] Tail Duplication Questions

We used to have an LLVM-IR pass did tail duplication (http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/tags/RELEASE_29/final/lib/Transforms/Scalar/TailDuplication.cpp) It was not used and went away with 3.0. The documentation is out of date. commit f940a1a869b4fe6f857e7fd8aeb97e7b7e9b390e Author: Rafael Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> Date: Tue Aug 30 23:03:45 2011 +0000 Remove the

Arnold Schwaighofer <arnold.schwaighofer at gmail.com> writes: > We used to have an LLVM-IR pass did tail duplication > (http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/tags/RELEASE_29/final/lib/Transforms/Scalar/TailDuplication.cpp) > It was not used and went away with 3.0. The documentation is out of > date. Ah. So is the MachineFunction version expected to work correctly?

Hi all, I have faced a little bit of a strange transformation from the TailDuplicatePass In CodeGen. When the pass clones the contents of TailBB into PredBB, the bundled instructions in TailBB are not bundled in PredBB. I think the reason why it is not bundled is that the 'DuplicateInstruction' function does not set up the flag of the first instruction of the bundle in PredBB when it

http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/tags/RELEASE_31/final/lib/CodeGen/Passes.cpp?revision=156747&view=markup void TargetPassConfig::addMachineSSAOptimization() { // Pre-ra tail duplication. if (addPass(EarlyTailDuplicateID) != &NoPassID) printAndVerify("After Pre-RegAlloc TailDuplicate"); /// Add passes that optimize machine instructions after register allocation.

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Mark Leone <markleone at gmail.com> wrote: > Is irreducibility a problem for existing LLVM passes? There aren't any LLVM passes that expect a reducible CFG at the moment; of course, some passes are more effective with reducible CFGs. > It looks like > there was once an open project for a pass to make irreducible graphs > reducible. Was that

Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> writes: >> Ah. So is the MachineFunction version expected to work correctly? > > It's part of the default set of CodeGen passes. It is? Was that true in 3.1? I can't see where it is initialized in llc. I probably missed something important. :) Thanks! -David

It seems that tail duplication can make a reducible CFG irreducible (example below). Is that intentional? Are there other optimizations that have that property? Is irreducibility a problem for existing LLVM passes? It looks like there was once an open project for a pass to make irreducible graphs reducible. Was that ever implemented? - Mark ; "opt -inline -tailduplicate" makes an

Thanks Eli. It's not introducing loops, just unstructured conditionals (e.g. X's in the control-flow graph, rather than diamonds). You can see it using "opt -view-cfg" on the code below. Sounds like it's not a bug. Thanks for the info. - Mark ; Tail duplication yielded this code, which has non-structured control flow. ; Note that "then.i2" and

Hi, We're having an issue with TailDuplication in our out-of-tree target and it's this PHI-node that seems to be the cause of the trouble: %vreg2<def> = PHI %vreg0, <BB#2>, %vreg1, <BB#3>; rN:%vreg2 aNlh_0_7:%vreg0 aNlh_rN:%vreg1 Note that the defined %vreg2 has register class "rN" while the read %vreg0 has register class "aNlh_0_7".

I think what's happening is BranchFolder::MaintainLiveIns is using a forward analysis on top of these missing kill flags, and updating the BB-live-ins/live-outs with an incorrect set of registers. Then when the stackmaps liveness analysis happens, it's not doing anything wrong, but it starts with the wrong set of live registers and will propagate those to the point of the

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:19 AM, <dag at cray.com> wrote: > Arnold Schwaighofer <arnold.schwaighofer at gmail.com> writes: > >> We used to have an LLVM-IR pass did tail duplication >> (http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/tags/RELEASE_29/final/lib/Transforms/Scalar/TailDuplication.cpp) >> It was not used and went away with 3.0. The documentation is out of

On Thursday 08 May 2008 18:33:48 Adrian Prantl wrote: > we noticed that llvmgcc4.2-2.2 sometimes generates non-natural loops > when compiling to bytecode without any optimizations. Apparently what > happens is that the loop header is duplicated, which results in two > entry points for the loop. this is actually a problem with the tailduplication pass of llvm. it does not consider

Hi, while reading the TailDuplication pass, I found a check that looks rather pointless. TailDuplication looks at an unconditional branch instruction, BI. It performs a number of checks on the successor of this branch instruction, Dest. One of this checks is counting the number of predecessor. If this count is zero, Dest is regarded as dead and no tail duplication happens. However, as far as I

On Jun 11, 2008, at 6:27 AM, Florian Brandner wrote: > On Thursday 08 May 2008 18:33:48 Adrian Prantl wrote: >> we noticed that llvmgcc4.2-2.2 sometimes generates non-natural loops >> when compiling to bytecode without any optimizations. Apparently what >> happens is that the loop header is duplicated, which results in two >> entry points for the loop. > > this is

Good morning! After updating and recompiling my copy of the LLVM trunk I noticed that the line "_passManager.add(llvm::createTailDuplicationPass());" in my code fails with the following assertion: Assertion failed: NormalCtor && "Cannot call createPass on PassInfo without default ctor!", file D:\Workspace\llvmtrunk\include\llvm/PassSupport.h, line 111 This behavior

Thanks again. I executed the following command line llc -O3 comb.ll.bc -debug-pass=Arguments and got Pass Arguments: -targetdata -targetpassconfig -no-aa -tbaa -targetlibinfo -basicaa -collector-metadata -machinemoduleinfo -machine-branch-prob -preverify -domtree -verify -loops -loop-simplify -scalar-evolution -loop-simplify -iv-users -loop-reduce -gc-lowering -unreachableblockelim

Hi, > I executed the following command line > > llc -O3 comb.ll.bc -debug-pass=Arguments > > and got > > Pass Arguments: -targetdata -targetpassconfig -no-aa -tbaa > -targetlibinfo -basicaa -collector-metadata -machinemoduleinfo > -machine-branch-prob -preverify -domtree -verify -loops -loop-simplify > -scalar-evolution -loop-simplify -iv-users -loop-reduce

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

Hello, I've been trying to figure out how to reproduce the results of a single clang -O3 compilation to a binary with a multi-step process using opt. Specifically I have: clang -O3 foo.c -o foo.exe which I want to replicate with: clang -O0 -c -emit-llvm foo.c opt -O3 foo.bc -o foo_o.bc clang foo_o.bc -o foo.exe Any hints / suggestions on what additional flags I need to produce the same

Awesome, thanks! I'd like to have the last step (llc in your example) not perform additional optimization passes, such as O3, and simply use the O3 pass from opt in the previous line. Do you happen to know if I should use 'llc -O0 foo_o.bc -o foo.exe' instead to achieve this? On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 6:35 PM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu,