similar to: [LLVMdev] a callback for opt plugin unloading event

On 6/25/12 8:55 PM, Thomson wrote: > Thanks, John. > > This sounds reasonable that the analysis group just provides an > interface to its implementors (pass). Then I have another question, is > it allowed to specify multiple pass in the same analysis group in the > command line for opt? Yes, you can do that. Using multiple analysis passes that belong to the same group may

Machine is 4.8-STABLE smaug# camcontrol devlist <COMPAQ BD009122BA 3B07> at scbus0 target 0 lun 0 (pass0,da0) <COMPAQ BD009122C6 B016> at scbus0 target 1 lun 0 (pass1,da1) <COMPAQ BD009122BA 3B07> at scbus0 target 2 lun 0 (pass2,da2) <COMPAQ BD00962373 BCJE> at scbus0 target 3 lun 0 (pass3,da3) <IBM IC35L018UCPR15-0 S70H>

Here is a patch to add colour to build output (make) for LLVM sources. Feedback and ideas welcome. The patch replaces $(Echo) usage in some key rules in Makefile.rules with $(Banner) which invokes a new script utils/make-banner.sh which is capable of adding appropriate ANSI escape sequences. step1: apply patch step2: chmod 755 utils/make-banner.sh step3: export MAKE_BANNER_ANSI=1 Next, you must

Thanks John. Your approach worked fine for my small toy program. Now, I would like to run my module pass on a huge project (still a single executable) consisting of a few thousand bit code files scattered in many different directories. And some of them are static libraries. Do you still think it's a good idea to manually gather and link them with llvm-ld? I've seen other module pass

On 8/19/11 4:36 PM, Jinwook Shin (HOTWING) wrote: > > Thanks John. Your approach worked fine for my small toy program. Now, > I would like to run my module pass on a huge project (still a single > executable) consisting of a few thousand bit code files scattered in > many different directories. And some of them are static libraries. Do > you still think it's a good idea

Thanks, John. This sounds reasonable that the analysis group just provides an interface to its implementors (pass). Then I have another question, is it allowed to specify multiple pass in the same analysis group in the command line for opt? If yes, which pass will be used for the call of getAnaysis<AnalysisGroup>()? -Thomson On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:34 PM, John Criswell <criswell at

Hi, I'm trying to implement a module pass as a share object to process an entire program as a unit. The target program is built from multiple object files, hence multiple bitcode files. However, it seems that opt does not take the whole program, but just one bitcode file, "test.bc" in the example run shown below. $ opt -load mypass.dylib -mymodulepass < test.bc > /dev/null

On 7/12/11 4:11 PM, Jinwook Shin (HOTWING) wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm trying to implement a module pass as a share object to process an > entire program as a unit. The target program is built from multiple > object files, hence multiple bitcode files. However, it seems that opt > does not take the whole program, but just one bitcode file, "test.bc" > in the

1. If we run a few passes in a sequence ..is the bytecode file transformed after each pass in sequence i.e if we have a) opt -pass1 -pass2 -pass3 < in.bc > out.bc b)opt -pass1 -pass2 < in.bc > tmp.bc opt -pass3 < tmp.bc > out.bc are the above two equivalent ? what I basically want is to run my pass on an optimised bytecode , so should i optimize it and get a new bytecode

Thanks John. I appreciate your help. I have taken the libLTO approach and it worked like a charm :) For those who wanted to achieve the same thing, below are the steps I've taken. John -- a small question: I thought I wouldn't need to touch Makefiles at all, but that wasn't the case. Could you take a look at Step 4) and tell me what you think? Thanks! 1) Create your own libLTO and

On 9/22/11 4:04 PM, Jinwook Shin wrote: > Thanks John. I appreciate your help. De nada. > > I have taken the libLTO approach and it worked like a charm :) For > those who wanted to achieve the same thing, below are the steps I've > taken. > > John -- a small question: I thought I wouldn't need to touch > Makefiles at all, but that wasn't the case. Could

what i have done is as follows password = Digest::SHA1.hexdigest("#{salt}:#{password}") pass1 = Digest::SHA1.hexdigest("#{salt}:asdfgh") pass2 = Digest::SHA1.hexdigest("#{salt}:asdfgh") pass3 = Digest::SHA1.hexdigest("#{salt}:qwerty") puts pass1==pass2 puts pass1==pass3 This works fine but i need to get the decrypted password how can i get it any help is

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:00 AM, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: > What's the proper incantation to get bugpoint to run things through opt > but use llc to generate asm? As noted, CBE has issues generating > correct code so using it isn't an option right now. It should be something like bugpoint x.bc -llc-safe -pass1 -pass2 -pass3. The -llc-safe forces it to never

Hello all, I'm having trouble compiling ocfs2-tools-1.6.3 on slackware64-13.1 These are my configure flags (the last 2 I added after googling this problem, but didn't help): ./configure \ --sbindir=/sbin \ --bin=/bin \ --libdir=/usr/lib${LIBDIRSUFFIX} \ --sysconfdir=/etc \ --datadir=/etc/ocfs2 \ --sharedstatedir=/var/ocfs2 \ --libexecdir=/usr/libexec \

Hello John et al - I have been struggling to implement static backwards slicing with LLVM. After digging llvmdev postings for some time, I see that other people were having similar difficulties and John's got almost complete code that may be shared. May I get a copy of it, too? Better yet, it would be helpful for many other people if the code were checked in to an example directory or

Thanks John. I appreciate your help and I look forward to obtaining the code. A proper LLVM sub-project: No rush on this and please take your time. Thanks. - Jin -----Original Message----- From: Criswell, John T [mailto:criswell at illinois.edu] Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 11:58 AM To: Jinwook Shin; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: RE: interprocedural static backwards slicing Dear Jin,

Hi, I tried to compiled ocfs2 on 2.6.32.2 x86_64 but still failed. there are an error blow: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- xattr.c: In function 'check_xattr_entry': xattr.c:250: warning: format '%u' expects type 'unsigned int', but argument 7 has type 'long int' xattr.c:287:

Hi, I tried to compiled ocfs2 on 2.6.32.2 x86_64 but still failed. there are an error blow: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- xattr.c: In function 'check_xattr_entry': xattr.c:250: warning: format '%u' expects type 'unsigned int', but argument 7 has type 'long int' xattr.c:287:

On Wednesday 16 July 2008 10:31, David Greene wrote: > On Wednesday 16 July 2008 10:12, David Greene wrote: > > I'm having some trouble using bugpoint with newer version of gcc > > (bugpoint debug output below). > > I was using gcc 4.1.2. When I try 3.2.3 I get: > > bugpoint-test-program.bc.cbe.c:237: warning: conflicting types for built-in > function

Dear Jin, I've talked with Vikram, and we agree that having this code (and a dynamic backwards slicing pass that Swarup and I wrote) in a publicly available SVN repository is a good thing. I'll try to get you a copy of the static slicing code some time next week (I should be able to work on it Monday morning) so that you can start working with it right away. I can work on making a