similar to: [LLVMdev] loop multiversioning

add -basicaa to your command line :) On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Willy WOLFF <willy.mh.wolff at gmail.com> wrote: > I play a bit more with MemoryDependenceAnalysis by wrapping my pass, and > call explicitely BasicAliasAnalysis. Its still using No Alias Analysis. > > How can I let MemoryDependenceAnalysis use BasicAliasAnalysis? > > Please, find attached my pass. >

Hi, I try to use MemoryDependenceAnalysis in a pass to analyse a simple function: void fct (int *restrict*restrict M, int *restrict*restrict L) { S1: M[1][1] = 1; S2: L[2][2] = 2; } When I iterate over MemoryDependenceAnalysis on the S2 statement, I get the load instruction for the first depth of the array, that’s ok. But I get also the load and store for the S1 statement. I assume the

Thanks to you both. On my Linux (centos6) system, I have reproduce a variant of the bug and learned about -plugin-opt=-debug-pass=Arguments which I infer from comments is intended to built arguments to “opt” however I found that some of the arguments don’t seem to be quite correct. I assume this just minor bit rot. bin/opt -o pass1.bc -datalayout -notti -basictti -x86tti -targetlibinfo

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jingyue Wu" <jingyue at google.com> > To: "songlh" <songlh at cs.wisc.edu>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:50:12 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] how to choose which alias analysis used in my pass? > > > Isn't -basicaa the default alias analysis already? No, -basicaa is added

Thanks again. I executed the following command line llc -O3 comb.ll.bc -debug-pass=Arguments and got Pass Arguments: -targetdata -targetpassconfig -no-aa -tbaa -targetlibinfo -basicaa -collector-metadata -machinemoduleinfo -machine-branch-prob -preverify -domtree -verify -loops -loop-simplify -scalar-evolution -loop-simplify -iv-users -loop-reduce -gc-lowering -unreachableblockelim

On Jan 3, 2015, at 11:52 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 2, 2015, at 8:32 PM, David Callahan <dcallahan at fb.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am new to the LLVM dev community so forgive a perhaps obvious question. I am looking at bug 17623 which is an LTO/optimizer interaction bug. I am working on a Mac with Xcode installed but have

Hi, > I executed the following command line > > llc -O3 comb.ll.bc -debug-pass=Arguments > > and got > > Pass Arguments: -targetdata -targetpassconfig -no-aa -tbaa > -targetlibinfo -basicaa -collector-metadata -machinemoduleinfo > -machine-branch-prob -preverify -domtree -verify -loops -loop-simplify > -scalar-evolution -loop-simplify -iv-users -loop-reduce

Hi, On 12/06/12 13:09, Abdul Wahid Memon wrote: > Thanks alot. How can we view those optimization which are enabled when we do > > llc -O3 comb.ll llc -O3 comb.ll -debug-pass=Arguments > > Are these the same as the ones produced by the following command line no, as I mentioned before they are of a completely different nature to the optimizations that opt does. Ciao, Duncan.

Thanks alot. How can we view those optimization which are enabled when we do llc -O3 comb.ll Are these the same as the ones produced by the following command line llvm-as < /dev/null | opt -O3 -disable-output -debug-pass=Arguments Regards Shahzad On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> Yes. But how exactly code generation (optimized one)

0 down vote favorite <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34049511/how-to-pass-optimization-passes-to-clang#> I'm trying to debug an issue for a new target where a testcase fails with -O1 optimization and passes with -O0 optimization. I got a list of optimization passes being performed when 'clang -O1' is called like this: llvm-as < /dev/null | opt -O1 -disable-output

I've developed a working LLVM back-end (based on LLVM 2.6) for a custom architecture with its own tool chain. This tool chain creates stand-alone programs from a single assembly. We used to use GCC, which supported producing a single machine assembly from multiple source files. I modified Clang to accept the architecture, but discovered that clang-cc (or the Clang Tool subclass inside Clang)

Hello, I am trying to replicate the output from opt -O3 foo.bc -o foo.opt.bc by specifying the individual passes instead of the -O3 flag. Looking at the passes from opt -O3 foo.bc -o foo.bc -debug-pass=Executions it seems there are two passes being run. When I run the flags indicated for the two passes specified in the 'Pass Arguments:' as two sequential opt processes or a single opt

Hi, I'm a PhD student doing phase ordering as part of my PhD topic and I would like to ask some questions about LLVM. Executing the following command to see what passes does OPT execute when targeting a SPARC V8 processor: /opt/clang+llvm-3.7.1-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-15.10/bin/llvm-as < /dev/null | /opt/clang+llvm-3.7.1-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-15.10/bin/opt -O3 -march=sparc -mcpu=v8

Hello, I am trying to simplify the CFG of a given code and eliminate the conditionals, even though I will obtain codes that are not semantically equivalent. For example, given a simple loop: for(i=0; i<N; i++){    a[i] = i;     if (i%2==0)       a[i] += 12; } I would keep only the loop, without the if statement: for(i=0; i<N; i++){    a[i] = i; } I can eliminate such conditionals on

On 10 January 2013 23:00, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > Some of the costs for the arithmetic operations should be handled > automatically by the BasicTTI (which asks TartetLowering if the type and > operations are legal). We need to have cost tables for things like "trunk > <4 x i64> to <4 x i8>" because even TLI does not know how custom

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 01:07:07PM -0700, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev wrote: > > > On May 9, 2016, at 10:43 AM, Ricardo Nobre via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm a PhD student doing phase ordering as part of my PhD topic and I would like to ask some questions about LLVM. > > > > Executing the following

Hi all, I have investigated the 6X extra compile-time overhead when Polly compiles the simple nestedloop benchmark in LLVM-testsuite. (http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/31?compare_to=28&baseline=28). Preliminary results show that such compile-time overhead is resulted by the complicated polly-dependence analysis. However, the key seems to be the polly-prepare pass, which introduces

Hi, I noticed many functions in the TargetTransformInfo interface are duplicates of those already in TargetLowering (e.g. isTruncateFree). Is the expectation really that targets will reimplement the same functions twice? AArch64’s TTI uses some TLI calls in some of its implementations, but why doesn’t the base TargetTransformInfo call the TargetLowering versions by default? - Matt

I think it would make sense for (1) and (2). I am not sure if (3) is feasible in instcombine. (I am not too familiar with LoopInfo) For the Octasic's Opus platform, I modified shouldMergeGEPs in our fork to: if (GEP.hasAllZeroIndices() && !Src.hasAllZeroIndices() && !Src.hasOneUse()) return false; return Src.hasAllConstantIndices(); // was return false;

On Jan 10, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Renato Golin Linaro <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > I'm also thinking about the individual instructions cost (getArithmeticInstrCost, getShuffleCost, etc). That can be a simple and easily parallelized task. I got the A9 manual that has the cost of all instructions (including NEON and VFP), that should give us a head start. Renato, Thanks for