similar to: [LLVMdev] Matching up inlined basic blocks with original basic blocks.

The attached patch didn't fix it, but when I also changed another == to = a few lines further down it seemed to work. Jeremy On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > Jeremy Salwen <jeremysalwen at gmail.com> writes: > > I followed the LNT quickstart guide > > (http://llvm.org/docs/lnt/quickstart.html) on my debian

Devang Patel wrote: > Hi John, > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:04 PM, John Criswell <criswell at uiuc.edu> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> 1) I recall reading somewhere that a few optimizations in LLVM 2.6 strip >> away debug information when such information interferes with >> optimization. Is this correct, >> > > Yes. > >

Hi Eli, Thanks for the link! I'm able to compile a standalone pass outside of the source tree, and I'm obviously ably to compile analysis groups inside the source tree. However, the problem comes when I try to do what the tutorial suggests to create an analysis group outside of the source tree. My understanding is that building out of tree requires different methods to register the

On May 26, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > In Unladen Swallow we (intend to) compile each function as we > determine it's hot. To "compile" a function means to translate it from > CPython bytecode to LLVM IR, optimize the IR using a > FunctionPassManager, and JIT the IR to machine code. We'd like to > include inlining among our optimizations. Currently

In Unladen Swallow we (intend to) compile each function as we determine it's hot. To "compile" a function means to translate it from CPython bytecode to LLVM IR, optimize the IR using a FunctionPassManager, and JIT the IR to machine code. We'd like to include inlining among our optimizations. Currently the Inliner is a CallGraphSCCPass, which can only be run by the

Hello all, I'm wondering as to the status of control flow profiling in llvm. From what I can gather there was an old system (using opt -insert-edge-profiling and the like) which was removed in this commit llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=191835 . The commit message mentions "modern PGO efforts", but I can't find anything in the source tree or

Hi Hal, Thank you for your email, that makes a lot of sense to me. I am working on some tools to use memory profiling to speculatively replace memory loads and stores with value forwarding in hardware implementations. I'd like to compare the profiled data to static alias analysis, so it would be super useful if there was a way to answer the questions about aliasing across backedges that

Thanks Daniel! I think you've cleared up some of my misconceptions, but I still am a bit confused about some of the corner cases. Suppose we had something like this std::vector<int> A(100); > int* x,y; > x=&A[0]; > for(int i=0; i<100; i++) { > y=&A[i]; > *y=*x; > x=&A[i+1]; > } > Would the load and store instructions be MustAlias? I

Hello all, I'm trying to follow the guide http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html to build an some passes and analysis groups out of tree. However, I'm having some trouble with crashes when I try to follow the guide. The first section provides a very useful example of what the whole .cpp file should look like for the HelloWorld pass. Obviously it's a bit more complex to write the

I followed the LNT quickstart guide ( http://llvm.org/docs/lnt/quickstart.html) on my debian machine, and it seems to have a problem running. When I consult test.log, every single test has a section like this # Pretend that the reference output was produced instantaneously. > cp /home/jeremy/hardware/llvm/test-suite/instant.txt > Output/sse.expandfft.out-nat.time >

Hi Daniel, Sorry for taking so long to respond. I spoke with a colleague more familiar with llvm who thought he could clear up my confusion, but we both came out of the conversation confused. I will try my best to explain the ambiguity. In an DAG, alias queries would be completely unambiguous. Every instruction would only be executed once, and every SSA value really would have a single static

Hey Daniel, Thanks again for the help. I'm still a bit confused about the interface to the alias analysis. It seems like we are talking about different interfaces. Has it changed from what the documentation says? As far as I can tell, the documentation takes a specific Value*, and no information about which dynamic execution it is talking about. When you say "Right. It's a

Hello all, I've read the documentation on alias analysis, and I think I understand it literally, but I just want to be sure, because it seems a bit strange. As it says on this web page <http://llvm.org/docs/AliasAnalysis.html>, The MayAlias response is used whenever the two pointers might refer to the > same object. > > The PartialAlias response is used when the two memory

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Jeremy Salwen <jeremysalwen at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hey Daniel, >> >> Thanks again for the help. I'm still a bit confused about the interface to >> the alias analysis. It seems like we are talking about different >> interfaces. >

Hi John, On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 8:43 AM, John Criswell <criswell at uiuc.edu> wrote: > Does the debug facilities in LLVM TOT, at present, maintain information > better than LLVM 2.6 (i.e., if a front-end puts the debug information in, > will the optimizations not take it out)?  Does the information that the > llvm-gcc front-end adds comparable to what llvm-gcc in LLVM 2.6 does?

I've got a call instruction: call void bitcast (void (%4 addrspace(1)*, <2 x i32>, <4 x float>)* @_Z12write_imagefPU3AS110_image2d_tDv2_iDv4_f to void (%9 addrspace(1)*, <2 x i32>, <4 x float>)*)(%9 addrspace(1)* %dstimg, <2 x i32> %28, <4 x float> %26) nounwind %4 and %9 are both (stripped) opaque structs. InlineFunction() does not inline this because

Hi everybody, I am trying to clone a function body into an existing declaration. That declaration has the same number of parameters but they differ in type and alignment. Fortunately, it does not care about the type. Unfortunately, CloneFunctionInto() copies the attributes from the old function to the new one unconditionally, overwriting the alignment attribute. Also, the Attribute interface

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Relph, Richard <Richard.Relph at amd.com> wrote: > I've got a call instruction: > call void bitcast (void (%4 addrspace(1)*, <2 x i32>, <4 x float>)* @_Z12write_imagefPU3AS110_image2d_tDv2_iDv4_f to void (%9 addrspace(1)*, <2 x i32>, <4 x float>)*)(%9 addrspace(1)* %dstimg, <2 x i32> %28, <4 x float> %26)

I'm trying to create a clone of a function using Function::Create() and CloneFunctionInto. However, I'm running into an issue. I believe that the instructions in the function clone still have Use edges to values in the original function. This is a problem for my purposes. For example, consider an original function F. I create a new function G belonging to the same module and call

Can you send me a patch with instructions to reproduce? I can take a look. -- adrian > On Jun 15, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > Yes, it does for us. My tree is couple days off the tip, and I see it there. > > Sergei > > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Keno Fischer via llvm-dev > Sent: