similar to: [LLVMdev] byval attr for base+range parameters

Hello guys, Do we have a pass to do unconditional branch folding except the one in Codegen? I checked in the lib/Transforms/Scalar, did not see any promising one. thank you, yuanfang

> On Jul 15, 2020, at 12:28, Chen, Yuanfang <Yuanfang.Chen at sony.com> wrote: > > In codegen with NPM, I've made all codegen passes (IR or MIR pass) to be only driven by `llc`. Both due to the way NPM registering pass (on-demand&dynamic instead of static initialization in Legacy PM), and reduce the confusion about which tool (`llc` or `opt`) to test codegen IR passes. >

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 6:39 PM Chen, Yuanfang via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Indeed, but there is a distinction about their position in the pipeline. We run opt & codegen pipeline separately, Why, though? Is there a reason why this inherently makes sense, or is it just a historical accident? At least to me it seems that it would make more sense to run all passes

Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > Hi, > > after working with llvm for a while, I'm still a little confused with the > meaning of the 'byval' attribute. From the langref: > > "This indicates that the pointer parameter should really be passed by value to > the function. The attribute implies that a hidden copy of the pointee is made > between the caller and the

One thing I want to mention. I believe in the current legacy pass manager implementation only one MachineFunction ever exists at a time. It is deleted before the next MachineFunction is created. This is very important for memory usage. I think the MachineOutliner being in the pipeline may create an exception to this. I think the initial version of retpoline used a ModulePass and that had to be

Hi Matt, which analysis is this? ________________________________________ From: Matt Arsenault <whatmannerofburgeristhis at gmail.com> on behalf of Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 12:02 PM To: Craig Topper Cc: Chen, Yuanfang; Nicolai Hähnle; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Introducing classes for the codegen driven by new pass

Hello, We have a user that wants to get the code coverage report for his library without turning on instrumentation for the library clients or change how they are built (only the library is instrumented). It seems like the inline member functions defined in headers are not instrumented in this case because the clients are not instrumented. The library itself does not have a copy of the inline

-Yuanfang > -----Original Message----- > From: Arthur Eubanks <aeubanks at google.com> > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 12:49 PM > To: Chen, Yuanfang <Yuanfang.Chen at sony.com> > Cc: LLVM Developers' List <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Introducing classes for the codegen driven by > new pass manager > > While we're

Hello LLVM community, I was trying to port a target specific loop transformation pass (HexagonVectorLoopCarriedReusePass) to the New Pass Manager. However, I could not figure out a way to register this pass with opt. I can see that llvm/lib/Passes/PassRegistry.def is the registry for target independent passes. Can anyone point me to an example/API which can help me in registering this pass so

I need to generate variables like status1, status2, status3, ...... request1, request2, request3, ...... this is my code, other unrelated detail are eliminated. static int varNum; static const char *getVarNum() { ++varNum; std::stringstream ss; ss << varNum; std::string *varname = new std::string(ss.str()); return varname->c_str(); } const char *VarNum = getVarNum(); Twine *x1 = new

#define GET_BIT(lll) \ // blah blah #define G(label1,label2) \ { \ // decent amount code \ ... while (1) { \ GET_BIT(label2); \ }; \ } void f() { if (..) G('c', 'd'); while ( .. ) G('a','b'); } After perf sampling, a lot

Hi, I am looking into Control-Flow Integrity for indirect function calls, implemented with jump tables. I want to step through the code that produces these jump tables in GDB. I have built clang and opt from source with debugging symbols. I believe this code lives in llvm/lib/Transforms/LowerTypeTests.cpp, but when I try to debug *opt* by running the command "run -lowertypetests cfi-icall.bc

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Eugene Toder <eltoder at gmail.com> wrote: > According to documentation Twines should be used only for temporary > values and not stored, so allocating the in heap sounds wrong. Yes, in general you should never be naming Twine directly, except in the case where you need to make a Twine for an integer. All other uses should be considered poor style, as

I've gotten a fantastic bug report. Consider the LLVM IR: target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" define internal i8* @access({ i8* }* %arg, i64) { ret i8* undef } define i8* @g({ i8* }* %arg) { bb: %tmp = alloca { i8* }*, align 8 store { i8* }* %arg, { i8* }** %tmp, align 8 br i1 undef, label %bb4, label %bb1 bb1: %tmp2 = load { i8* }*, { i8* }** %tmp, align 8

Hi, Is there a mechanism in place to use the new pass manager with target-specific passes added (at the moment) via addIRPasses in TargetPassConfig? I did see any code related to that, did I miss something? Is it in plan? -- Krzysztof Parzyszek kparzysz at quicinc.com AI tools development

Hi all, I have the following C code. static int addp(int *c, int a,int b) { int x = *c + a + b; return(x); } I want to replace *c with a scalar. So I tried the -argpromotion pass. However, it fails to do anything to the resulting llvm file. List of commands: clang add.c -c -o add.bc clang add.c -S -o add.ll opt -argpromotion -stats add.bc -o add_a.bc llvm-dis < add_a.bc > add_a.ll Also,

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 9:59 AM Roman Lebedev <lebedev.ri at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 7:48 PM Arthur Eubanks via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > After talking with some NPM people, I believe the ultimate goal after > NPM is enabled by default is to only support `-passes=`, and remove support > for `-foo-pass`. > Hm,

On 05/28/15 15:27, Yuanfang Chen wrote: > #define GET_BIT(lll) \ > // blah blah > > #define G(label1,label2) \ > { \ > // decent amount code \ > ... > while (1) { \ > GET_BIT(label2); \ > }; \ > } > > void f() { > if (..)

Hi all, just a quick question, in llvm::TargetData, uint64_t MemberOffsets[1]; // variable sized array! MemberOffsets has two elements, why it's variable sized ? yuanfang -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100423/6e0d57a5/attachment.html>

Hello folks, I wrote a transforming looppass for my project, opt --help can see it. I want clang to use my pass too, so that I don't have to compile to IR, opt, and then llc to binary manually. Now I am trying to add my pass to O2 by mimicking LICM pass. I add a line "MPM.add(createMyPass());" in PassManagerBuilder::populateModulePassManager, and got assertion fail "void