similar to: [LLVMdev] Overhauling the command-line processing/codegen options code

Reply to list as I had originally intended... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Overhauling the command-line processing/codegen options code To: Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>

On Feb 13, 2013, at 2:32 PM, Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > > This is a very interesting one that is orthogonal to Bill's work. The preferred approach for this sort of thing is to change the LoopUnroll pass to take the unroll threshold as a constructor argument or a struct that wraps up all of the configuration settings. When the pass is *default*

Hi All, the attached patch performs the splitting in the proposed manner. before applying the patch, please execute svn cp lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopUnroll.cpp lib/Transforms/Utils/UnrollLoop.cpp to make the patch apply and preserve proper history. Transforms/Utils/UnrollLoop.cpp contains the unrollLoop function, which is now used by the LoopUnroll pass. I've also moved the

I've done some minimal testing on FreeBSD 8.x i386. When running make check I get: # of expected passes 2188 # of unexpected failures 1 # of expected failures 6 The error output is: Running /usr/cvsports/devel/llvm/work/llvm-2.2/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/dg.exp ... FAIL: /usr/cvsports/devel/llvm/work/llvm-2.2/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/2007-11-05-Crash.ll for

On 13 February 2013 19:37, Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > Is anyone currently working on overhauling the command-line processing code? > I'm currently doing some work on the CommandLine library but I don't think my work is going to help you. I'm current working on... - Allowing declared command line options to be put into categories to allow a

The loop rotation pass does modify the function, which I'm guessing means that a FunctionPassManager can be used to run LoopPasses (this is not obvious to me after looking through the FunctionPassManager code). Unfortunately none of the other passes I'm using (ScalarEvolution, LCSSA, IndVarSimplify, and LoopUnroll) appear to have an effect. I verified that the function can be loop

Hello Matthijs, Separating mechanism from policy is a good thing for the LoopUnroll pass. Instead of moving the policy to a subclass though, I think it'd be better to move the mechanism, the unrollLoop function, out to be a standalone utility function, with the LoopInfo object passed in explicitly. FoldBlockIntoPredecessor would also be good to make into a standalone utility function, since

Hello, I wrote my own pass which needs to do some loop unrolling. I can perform loop unrolling via opt: opt -mem2reg -loops -loop-simplify -loop-rotate -lcssa -loop-unroll -unroll-count=50 mytest.bc -o mytest.bc This command works perfectly. However, what I really want is to produce the **same behavior** but from my own pass (i.e., I don't want to use opt). I wrote a Module pass which

Hi, just a quick question about the intent of the ApproximateLoopSize() function in LoopUnroll.cpp: If a loop contains debug stoppoint intrinsics, does it make sense to count them? My understanding is that they are removed when not running under llvm-db anyway, so we probably shouldn't make size judgements based on them. Is that right, or am I missing something? Anyway, if I'm right,

Hi, the attached patch splits the loop unroll pass into a LoopUnroll superclass that implements the unrolling mechanism, and a SimpleLoopUnroll subclass implementing the current policy. This split is modeled after the split between Inliner and SimpleInliner. The superclass currently still finds out the TripCount and TripMultiple, and passes those, together with the Loop in question, to a policy

Hi all, I'm attempting to perform loop unrolling on a single function using the C++ API. Maybe I missed something in the docs, but I cannot figure out a way to do this. The function I'm working with is very simple, containing a single for loop and not much else. I compiled the function to IR using clang with no optimizations enabled. My initial plan was to first run the IndVarSimplify

> However, the proper include is #include <climits>, since we're in c++, not C. > > Could someone add this include to lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopUnroll.cpp ? Done (r51145). Maybe this should go into the release too. Ciao, Duncan.

On 1/18/17 3:55 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Mikhail Zolotukhin > <mzolotukhin at apple.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Continuing recent efforts in understanding compile time slowdowns, I looked at some historical data: I picked one test and tried to pin-point commits that affected its compile-time. The data I have is not 100%

On 16/01/2014, 23:47 , Andrew Trick wrote: > > On Jan 15, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com > <mailto:dnovillo at google.com>> wrote: > >> Chandler also pointed me at the vectorizer, which has its own >> unroller. However, the vectorizer only unrolls enough to serve the >> target, it's not as general as the runtime-triggered

Ah but how did you compile the clang-4.0 you were using? Does it run faster if you compile it with clang-4.0? :) On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On this topic, I just tried to build ToT with clang-3.9.1 and clang-4.0 > and the total time to complete `ninja clang` on this machine went from > 12m54s to

Hi, Continuing recent efforts in understanding compile time slowdowns, I looked at some historical data: I picked one test and tried to pin-point commits that affected its compile-time. The data I have is not 100% accurate, but hopefully it helps to provide an overview of what's going on with compile time in LLVM and give a better understanding of what changes usually impact compile time.

Hi, On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Pekka Nikander <pekka.nikander at nomadiclab.com> wrote: >  Would the best way be to add an option to -loop-unroll, and hack away at lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopUnroll.cpp? Instead, the better alternative is to write another pass similar to LoopUnrollPass.cpp (say LoopPeelPass.cpp) and add new option -loop-peel. The new pass could use llvm::UnrollLoop()

Hello, I wrote my own pass which needs to do some loop unrolling. I can perform loop unrolling via opt: opt -mem2reg -loops -loop-simplify -loop-rotate -lcssa -loop-unroll -unroll-count=50 mytest.bc -o mytest.bc This command works perfectly. However, what I really want is to produce the **same behavior** but from my own pass (i.e., I don't want to use opt). I wrote a Module pass which

[I am a newcomer to llvm, so don't believe me.] Hi Claude, I added -debug to the command line in an attempt to study your example, and got out this: Loop Unroll: F[main] Loop %bb1 Loop Size = 4 Can't unroll; loop not terminated by a conditional branch. The source code for that is on line 116 (or so) in lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopUnroll.cpp Based on a quick look at the source code,

On Aug 6, 2012, at 6:04 AM, Jorge Navas <navas at comp.nus.edu.sg> wrote: > > Hello, > > I wrote my own pass which needs to do some loop unrolling. > > I can perform loop unrolling via opt: > > opt -mem2reg -loops -loop-simplify -loop-rotate -lcssa -loop-unroll > -unroll-count=50 mytest.bc -o mytest.bc > > This command works perfectly. > >