similar to: [LLVMdev] -backend-option

On 02/23/2013 04:28 AM, David Chisnall wrote: > Hi Reed, > > -Os could do with some love. It is more or less the same set of passes as -O2, but with a few things that are most likely to increase code size removed. We have had problems with it in the past for FreeBSD's bootloader. By tweaking the set of default passes added for -Os, I got the size down by about 20%, but I didn't

At one of the BOFS during the llvm conference a few years back, one of the Apple managers stated in effect that their view of -Os was to get some modest savings but only if performance has near 0 impact. On 02/23/2013 09:45 AM, Reed Kotler wrote: > On 02/23/2013 04:28 AM, David Chisnall wrote: >> Hi Reed, >> >> -Os could do with some love. It is more or less the same set

Mips 16 is basically to save space. I want to start comparing real benchmarks with llvm and gcc -mips16. Does -Os have any meaning currently to clang? llvm? What about inlining? Is inlining turned off? Tia. Reed

Hi Reed, -Os could do with some love. It is more or less the same set of passes as -O2, but with a few things that are most likely to increase code size removed. We have had problems with it in the past for FreeBSD's bootloader. By tweaking the set of default passes added for -Os, I got the size down by about 20%, but I didn't have time to evaluate whether this was a general saving or

I see what my problem is here.... I'll continue to move further. Seems like Richards fix is still okay. On 02/25/2014 02:42 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:41 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> On 02/25/2014 02:38 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:32 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote:

On 02/25/2014 02:38 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:32 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> On 02/25/2014 09:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>> reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> writes: >>>> On 02/24/2014 04:42 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:40 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at

On 02/24/2014 04:42 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:40 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> I need to leave soon and will take a look in the morning. >> >> I did look at the autoconf input files configure.ac >> >> There is a disable-zlib but not a disable-valgrind, even though it seems >> like there used to be.

On 06/10/2014 05:51 PM, Pete Cooper wrote: > Hi Reed > > You can do this on the instruction itself by telling it 2 operands > must be the same register. For example, from X86: > > let Constraints = "$src1 = $dst" in > defm INSERTPS : SS41I_insertf32<0x21, "insertps">; > > Thanks, Hi Pete, Sorry. I should have been more specific. I'm

If you can't make an executable test from C or C++ code then how do you know something works. Just by examination of the .s? On 09/30/2014 03:18 PM, Reed Kotler wrote: > If I wanted to call this function that they generated by hand, from C or > C+ code, how would that be done? > > if have seen cases where a real boolean gets generated but it was > something fairly involved.

Okay. Cool. So do you bootrstrap and verify as part of the usual testing? Do the nightly scripts do this? Reed On 06/28/2012 11:08 AM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Jun 27, 2012, at 10:48 PM, Reed Kotler<rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > >> On 06/27/2012 05:00 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> On Jun 19, 2012, at 5:24 PM, reed kotler<rkotler at mips.com> wrote:

I used the A9 schedule as an example: http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/Target/ARM/ARMScheduleA9.td The documentation could use more clarity, but this is how I was able to do it to always get two specific instructions to be scheduled together. ________________________________________ From: reed kotler [rkotler at mips.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 8:54 PM To: Micah Villmow

Well, differences of opinion is what makes horse races. Reed On 06/04/2012 04:57 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:53 PM, reed kotler<rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> On 06/04/2012 03:25 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: >>> I'm pretty sure neither llvm nor clang have any technical debt at all. >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:18 PM, reed

FWIW, I'm putting together (hopefully to be done by the end of this weekend) a substantial refactoring of the TableGen backend API along with shiny new documentation (reStructuredText with sphinx) of all of TableGen, including documentation about how to write backends and---depending on how adventurous I get---a more detailed coverage of the syntax. Also, Reed, in your TableGen talk, IIRC,

Hi Sean, Glad to hear there is clean up of tablegen going on. Just for the record, I don't know what you are referring to regarding some comment of mine at my talk about 10K LOC. I don't know how big tablegen is itself nor how much code has been written in it so I would not have ventured such a guess. The idea of totally replacing the tablegen language came up at the talk during the

On 02/25/2014 09:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> writes: >> On 02/24/2014 04:42 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:40 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >>>> I need to leave soon and will take a look in the morning. >>>> >>>> I did look at the autoconf input files

Reed, Couldn't you also use instruction scheduling classes and specify that the second instruction has a bypass from the first instruction? The scheduler should always schedule them together in that case. Micah > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of reed kotler > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Can we get back to the substantive discussion about your ideas for lessening the technical debt? On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 8:05 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > Well, differences of opinion is what makes horse races. > > Reed > > > On 06/04/2012 04:57 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:53 PM, reed kotler<rkotler at

Well, you are an mclinker contributor and Google uses mclinker and now it's broken as the result of your change. I still don't see any justification to making a change in a public interface that is used by other non LLVM projects to fix some issue with clang warnings. People should be able to derive from those classes. I can't understand your reasoning as to why these classes must

On 03/19/2015 08:55 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:30 AM, Reed Kotler <Reed.Kotler at imgtec.com > <mailto:Reed.Kotler at imgtec.com>> wrote: > > One could argue that mclinker is doing something good or not by > how it's using this class > but I don't see the need for parser<bool> to be final. That is a >

On 06/04/2012 05:17 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > Can we get back to the substantive discussion about your ideas for > lessening the technical debt? The lessening requires enlisting people that are willing to do this as opposed to doing fun science like cool optimization. I,for example, find the documentaiton, cleanup and refactoring to be interesting so I don't feel cheated to work on