similar to: [LLVMdev] Performance regression in the LiveIntevals phase

Hello, Philipp Becker and me, Vaidas Gasiunas, are developers at SAP and part of a team developing a C-like domain-specific language for the SAP HANA in-memory database. We use LLVM as a backend to translate our language to native code, primarily on x86-64 platforms. Our programs are created dynamically, compiled and optimized in a running database. As a result of that we have special

On Dec 12, 2013, at 04:25 , Gasiunas, Vaidas <vaidas.gasiunas at sap.com> wrote: > To address these requirements we have developed a set of patches improving performance and malfunction safety of certain compiler passes and would be interested in contributing them at some point. Before proposing concrete changes, we would like to know what the general interest is with respect to making

Hi Philip, Thanks for the positive response from all of you! > One question: How are you handling EOM? Error return? Custom region allocator? When running into an Out-of-memory situation we're currently only doing an error return, i.e. the compilation fails, but does so without crashing the process in which the compilation/jitting occurs. It is ok for us if llvm returns with a

Hi Andy, > I would think you could use a simple allocation scheme on the host side and then allocate a single block (or perhaps one code block and one data block) in the target process to receive everything, since everything is loaded on the host before you need to copy it to the target process. But perhaps I'm missing something regarding your particular scenario. > In any event,

On 12/12/13 4:25 AM, Gasiunas, Vaidas wrote: > Hello, > > Philipp Becker and me, Vaidas Gasiunas, are developers at SAP and part of a team developing a C-like domain-specific language for the SAP HANA in-memory database. We use LLVM as a backend to translate our language to native code, primarily on x86-64 platforms. Our programs are created dynamically, compiled and optimized in a

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Philipp Becker" <philipp.becker at sap.com> > To: "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com>, "LLVM Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 6:55:59 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Making LLVM safer in out-of-memory situations > > Hi Philip, > > Thanks for the

>> To increase stability for us we have already moved the main part of the compilation to a separate process that may crash in case of an error without doing much harm, i.e. does not crash the database. > Were there any interesting challenges that arose during this process? > This seems to be an approach many folks are either taking or > considering. If there are things we could

Hi Philip, > If I'm reading you correctly, you are relying on exception propagation > and handler (destructors for local objects) execution. You have chosen > not to add extra exception logic to LLVM itself, but are relying on the > correctness of exception propagation within the code. (The last two > sentances are intended to be a restatement of what your message said.

Hi, I am trying to generate the DFG of machine functions. Initially, I added a pass to generate the DFG of LLVM IR functions. This was based on the mail thread - http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-September/025582.html. This pass worked fine and I was able to generate DFG of LLVM IR functions. Later, I ported the DFG pass code for machine functions. I ported the InstIterator.h

I tried debugging it and the issue seems to be in the implementation of MachineInstrIterator.h and the way it interacts with GraphWriter.h functions. I found this by replacing the ( template <> struct GraphTraits<MCDFGraph<MachineFunction*> >) with a similar MCDFGraph based template of CFG similar to the one in MachineFunction.h (similarly replacing the DOTGraphTraits with the

Edwin, thanks, it starts making sense inline comments... Török Edwin wrote: > On 2009-09-06 19:57, Ioannis Nousias wrote: > >> Edwin, >> >> thank you for your effort, but I'm not sure I understand. >> Are you describing a graph traversal problem? Is the data model stored >> in a predecessor/successor fashion, which requires you to 'walk' the

On 2009-09-06 19:57, Ioannis Nousias wrote: > Edwin, > > thank you for your effort, but I'm not sure I understand. > Are you describing a graph traversal problem? Is the data model stored > in a predecessor/successor fashion, which requires you to 'walk' the > graph in order to visit all nodes? (and what happens when you have > disjointed DFGs?). Sorry for the

Hi Hal, > Does this mean that you're using C++ exception handling to manage the cleanup? No, not really. From the place where we're calling into llvm we are catching all exceptions that may occur during compilation, but normally we do not add any additional catch clauses into the llvm source itself. We mainly rely on correct stack unwinding by destructors in llvm when an exception is

LLVM can model some quite complicated register banks now, and we even use registers to model some encoding constraints. For example, a few ARM instructions like strexd have two register operands that must be an aligned pair of consecutive GPR registers (like r0, r1). This constraint is modeled with the GPRPair register class containing R0_R1, R2_R3, ... pseudo-registers. Sometimes ISAs also

Hi All, Has vmkit been updated and tested with LLVM 2.8? I am unable to build it (llvm builds fine). There were some errors with Makefile.rules: $(Verb) $(LLVMAS) -f $(<F) -o - | $(LLC) -march=cpp -cppgen=contents -o $@ (march and cppgen options not recognized). What I cannot get past is this one (the warnings concern me as well): ... make[3]: Leaving directory

Hi everyone, We are using the llvm2cpp feature of LLVM in the VMKit project and there are some issues that I would like to point out. I made a tiny reproducible example here, to be clear: echo "int main() { return 0; };" > test.c && clang test.c -emit-llvm -c -o - | llc -march=cpp -cppgen=function -cppfor=main -o - This command is supposed to generate the C++ code to

I am hitting an LLVM assertion from the llc tool iff the bitcode file is optimized at -O3 level by opt). -O1 and -O2 levels of opt do not cause this assert. LLVM version 3.4svn DEBUG build with assertions. Built Jul 14 2013 (15:39:08). Default target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Host CPU: amdfam10 I have attached the input bc file before -O3 optimization :bzip2.del.bc.tgz I have attached

Bill, Are there any plans to integrate the new openmp support into the llvm/clang 3.5 build process? I have been able to build the current llvm/clang/compiler-rt/openmp svn on Mac OS X 10.9 out of tree with… pushd projects/openmp/runtime make compiler=clang popd and then OPENMP_DIR=`ls projects/openmp/runtime/tmp | grep dyn` pushd

Hi Hal, I have filed http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16780 -Milind On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > Milind, > > Have you filed a bug on this? If not, can you please open a bug report (http://llvm.org/bugs)? > > -Hal > > ----- Original Message ----- >> I am hitting an LLVM assertion from the llc tool iff the bitcode

+Bill who worked on the attribute change On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Harris BAKIRAS <h.bakiras at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > We are using the llvm2cpp feature of LLVM in the VMKit project and there are > some issues that I would like to point out. > > I made a tiny reproducible example here, to be clear: > > echo "int main() { return 0; };"