similar to: [LLVMdev] How to configure the optimization parts in codegen

TargetMachine::CGFT_AssemblyFile is exactly what I am trying to write out. Frank On 02/22/2016 11:06 AM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > On 19 February 2016 at 16:16, Frank Winter via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> TargetMachine::addPassesToEmitFile(..) >> requires as its 2nd argument an raw_pwrite_stream. >> >> Is it possible to create such a

Right now, I am using TargetMachine::addPassesToEmitFile <http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/classllvm_1_1LLVMTargetMachine.html#a356929c1f0d202e4a9d3202aff1dbb05> to write the output of a backend to a file. How can I tell LLVM to write into a memory buffer instead? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, I am using TargetMachine::addPassesToEmitFile to write out x86-64 assembly. However, the generated assembly uses the AT&T syntax. Is there a way to switch to the Intel syntax? Thanks, Frank

Note that raw_fd_ostream is not seekable, and hence will not be suitable as addPassesToEmitFile output stream. 2016-02-22 18:27 GMT+02:00 Rafael Espíndola <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > On 22 February 2016 at 11:16, Frank Winter <fwinter at jlab.org> wrote: > > TargetMachine::CGFT_AssemblyFile is exactly what I am trying to write > out. > > I see. > > For

Hi, I'm embarrassed that I can't figure this out... I have a compiler that outputs my module in either .s assembly format or .obj binary format, either one works just fine. But if I try to output both of them by adding passes, LLVM throws an Assert: void WinCOFFStreamer::EmitLabel(MCSymbol *Symbol) { assert(Symbol->isUndefined() && "Cannot define a symbol

On 15 November 2013 20:05, Frank Winter <fwinter at jlab.org> wrote: > Good catch! That was the problem in my case too. I totally > overlooked the alignment requirement for AVX. I wonder if the validation mechanism shouldn't have caught it earlier... Do you guys run validate on the modules before JIT-ing? --renato -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

On 1 July 2015 at 21:22, Frank Winter <fwinter at jlab.org> wrote: > there were two follow-up emails. I only got one... weird... > The issue is solved. The SLP vectorizer has > a magic number built into the code which determines the max. vector length > to search for. That was set to 128 bits. Increasing it to 256 bits solved > the issue. That looks like a simple fix. Is

Hi Arnold, thanks for the detailed setup. Still, I haven't figured out the right thing to do. I would need only the native target since all generated code will execute on the JIT execution machine (right now, the old JIT interface). There is no need for other targets. Maybe it would be good to ask specific questions: How do I get the triple for the native target? How do I setup the

Hmm.. I don't quite understand. How can a module validator catch this, when it's the pointers, i.e. the payload, you pass as function arguments that need to be aligned.. ?! Frank On 15/11/13 15:16, Renato Golin wrote: > On 15 November 2013 20:05, Frank Winter <fwinter at jlab.org > <mailto:fwinter at jlab.org>> wrote: > > Good catch! That was the problem in my

Good that you bring this up. I still have no solution to this vectorization problem. However, I can rewrite the code and insert a second loop which eliminates the 'urem' and 'div' instructions in the index calculations. In this case, the inner loop's trip count would be equal to the SIMD length and the loop vectorizer ignores the loop. Unrolling the loop and SLP is not an

On 30 October 2013 18:40, Frank Winter <fwinter at jlab.org> wrote: > const std::uint64_t ir0 = (i+0)%4; // not working > I thought this would be the case when I saw the original expression. Maybe we need to teach module arithmetic to SCEV? --renato -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On 06/11/13 08:54, Arnold wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 5, 2013, at 7:39 PM, Frank Winter <fwinter at jlab.org > <mailto:fwinter at jlab.org>> wrote: > >> Good that you bring this up. I still have no solution to this >> vectorization problem. >> >> However, I can rewrite the code and insert a second loop which >>

Hi Frank, On Oct 26, 2013, at 6:29 PM, Frank Winter <fwinter at jlab.org> wrote: > I would need this to work when calling the vectorizer through > the function pass manager. Unfortunately I am having the same > problem there: I am not sure which function pass manager you are referring here. I assume you create your own (you are not using opt but configure your own pass

Hi Frank, This loop should be vectorized by the SLP-vectorizer. It has several scalars (C[0], C[1] … ) that can be merged into a vector. The SLP vectorizer can’t figure out that the stores are consecutive because SCEV can’t analyze the OR in the index calculation: %2 = and i64 %i.04, 3 %3 = lshr i64 %i.04, 2 %4 = shl i64 %3, 3 %5 = or i64 %4, %2 %11 = getelementptr inbounds float*

Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 5, 2013, at 7:39 PM, Frank Winter <fwinter at jlab.org> wrote: > > Good that you bring this up. I still have no solution to this vectorization problem. > > However, I can rewrite the code and insert a second loop which eliminates the 'urem' and 'div' instructions in the index calculations. In this case, the inner loop's trip

On 12 November 2013 15:14, Frank Winter <fwinter at jlab.org> wrote: > I am asking because the option 'force-vector-width' is too restrictive. > I would like to leave open the possibility to use vector width 2. I was about to say that, and you saved us both one cycle. ;) What you could do is to force an architecture that doesn't have AVX, only SSE. I'm not sure how

On 12 November 2013 15:53, Frank Winter <fwinter at jlab.org> wrote: > .. forcing the vector size to 4 does not prevent using AVX. > Sure. That's more for tests than anything else. So, there are ways of disabling stuf in Clang, for instance "-mattr=-avx" or "-target-feature -avx", but I'm not sure how you're doing it in the JIT. I'm also not sure

Hi Nadav, that's the whole point of it. I can't in general make the index calculation simpler. The example given is the simplest non-trivial index function that is needed. It might well be that it's that simple that the index calculation in this case can be thrown aways altogether and - as you say - be replaced by the simple loop you mentioned. However, this cannot be done in the

Frank, It sounds like the SLP vectorizer thinks that it is more profitable to use 128bit wide operations (because 256bit operations are double pumped on Sandybridge). Did you see a different result on Haswell? Thanks, Nadav > On Jul 1, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Frank Winter <fwinter at jlab.org> wrote: > > I realized that the function parameters had no alignment attributes on them.

> On Aug 7, 2014, at 2:57 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer <aschwaighofer at apple.com> wrote: > > Your .ll file does not have a data layout. Opt will not initialize the DataLayoutPass. The SLP vectorizer will not vectorize because there is no DataLayoutPass. > > debug-cmake/bin/opt -default-data-layout="e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128" -basicaa -slp-vectorizer -S