similar to: [LLVMdev] Contribute a new precise pointer analysis to LLVM

Thanks, Chris. We are interested in contributing it to LLVM itself. Our manager agrees to commit resources for maintenance needs if it is accepted by the community. Regards, Lian On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Oct 17, 2013, at 5:20 PM, lian li <lianli at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi All, > > This is Lian Li from

On Oct 17, 2013, at 10:51 PM, lian li <lianli at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, Chris. > > We are interested in contributing it to LLVM itself. Our manager > agrees to commit resources for maintenance needs if it is accepted by > the community. This is great. Please make sure Oracle legal sign off on explicitly granting LLVM the use of the patents associated with the work. On

On Oct 17, 2013, at 5:20 PM, lian li <lianli at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > This is Lian Li from Oracle Labs in Brisbane Australia. > > We have developed a precise and highly efficient pointer analysis > framework on top of LLVM, The approach is flow, context, and field > sensitive, details are described in the two papers below: > > "Boosting the

Hi Evan, We did an experiment using the LLVM test suite: we compare the overhead of using our analysis to the LLVM default, both with -O2 option. The overall overhead of compiling the whole test suite using our analysis is 36.5%. The biggest overhead is observed in "SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/flops-5", where we are 5 times slower: 0.07s (with our analysis) compared to

Hi Hal, Thanks for your interest. We tested with the following existing compiler optimizations in LLVM with SPECINT2006 benchmarks: -dse (dead store elimination), -gvn (global value numbering), -licm (loop invariant code motion), -bb-vectorize (basic block vectorization), -memcpyopt (memcpy optimization), -sink (code sinking), -loop-idom (recognize loop idioms), -argpromotion (argument

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > Hi Evan, > > > > We did an experiment using the LLVM test suite: we compare the > > overhead of using our analysis to the LLVM default, both with -O2 > > option. > > It might also be interesting to try with -O3; I don't know if we have any

Hi Daniel, I want to clarify that our analysis is not based on CFL-reachability. We apply CFL-reachability to matching context information where the exist from a function to a call-site must match the entry from the corresponding call-site. The problem is a simple balanced parentheses problem in CFL-reachability, and it can be computed efficiently. The paper you mentioned is a very nice paper

Hi Lian, I am certainly interested in seeing this; do you have performance numbers (compile time)? Also, can you share more information about the promising optimization results you mentioned? Thanks, Hal ----- Original Message ----- > Hi All, > > This is Lian Li from Oracle Labs in Brisbane Australia. > > We have developed a precise and highly efficient pointer analysis >

----- Original Message ----- > Hi Evan, > > We did an experiment using the LLVM test suite: we compare the > overhead of using our analysis to the LLVM default, both with -O2 > option. It might also be interesting to try with -O3; I don't know if we have any significant vectorizable loops in the test suite with a large number of arrays, but if we do, this kind of analysis

I notice you guys formulate your CFL reachability problem as a balanced parentheses problem. What algorithm do you use to solve it? Are you aware of recent work that comes up with linear time and n log n time algorithms to solve this class of problems: http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/lyu/_media/paper/pldi2013.pdf In particular, the time bound from the paper: "However, if we need the precise

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 7:27 AM, lian li <lianli at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > I want to clarify that our analysis is not based on CFL-reachability. > We apply CFL-reachability to matching context information where the > exist from a function to a call-site must match > the entry from the corresponding call-site. Yes, sorry, I pulled the wrong quote, it was late.

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:07 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> It might also be interesting to try with -O3; I don't know if we have any >> significant vectorizable loops in the test suite with a large number of

On Oct 22, 2013, at 1:29 PM, llvmdev-request at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > Send LLVMdev mailing list submissions to > llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > llvmdev-request at cs.uiuc.edu > > You can

On 10/23/2013 7:52 AM, lian li wrote: > According to our experiments with SPEC, we haven't observed > significant impact in terms of execution performance. In our > experiments, we run a list of 8 optimizations that require alias > analysis (including -licm, -gvn, -bb-vectorize,...), and for each > optimization we rerun our analysis so that its result can be used by >

Hi, developers, Recently, I read two papers [1], [2] about finding the root causes of compiler bugs. However, I do not find any information in these paper about how compiler developers find the root causes of compiler bugs in practice. So I am curious whether these techniques are useful in practice. For my experience, the outputs of compilers are always used to isolate the causes of compiler

Hi Christian, Thank you so much for the reply! Please see my comments inline. On 03/21/2016 09:32 AM, Christian Convey wrote: > Hi Jia, > > If one looks at existing research literatures, there are even more > algorithm to consider for doing pointer analysis. > > > For at least some published AA algorithms, there may be some > uncertainty about software patents

Dear llvm devs, tl;dr: What prevents llvm from switching to a fancier pointer analysis? Currently, there exists a variety of general-purpose alias analyses in the LLVM codebase: basic-aa, globalsmodref-aa, tbaa, scev-aa, and cfl-aa. However, only the first three are actually turned on when invoking clang with -O2 or -O3 (please correct me if I'm wrong about this). If one looks at

I looked into the archives as far back as 2009 and searched around for more information about vmkit, but I still have some questions. First of all, what is that status of VMKit? Is there any active development? A roadmap? Is it in maintenance mode? Secondly, can VMKit generate binaries that can be used on android/jni? Finally, I understand that the .net/CLI support is no longer being

Hi all! I'm new to this forum so please excuse me if I don't conform perfectly to the protocols on this board! I'm trying to get an estimate of true prevalence based upon results from an imperfect test. I have various estimates of se/sp which could inform my priors (at least upper and lower limits even if with a uniform distribution) and found the following code on this website..

On Feb 11, 2011, at 3:48 AM, Lian Cheng wrote: > Compilation error output is attached. > > Seems that G++ 3.4.5 fails to pick the right specialization version of getExprLocImpl() function in lib/AST/Expr.cpp. http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc -eric -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: