similar to: [TSAN] LLVM statistics and pass initialization trigger race detection

On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 03:32:39PM -0500, Long Fei wrote: > I am using llvm for source-to-source inlining. So I did: > > % llvm-gcc file_a.c file_b.c ... file_n.c -o file > % opt -inline -inline-threshold=1000 < file.bc | llc -march=c > outfile.c > > Can anyone tell me how llvm determines if a function should be > inlined, and what roll does

I am using llvm for source-to-source inlining. So I did: % llvm-gcc file_a.c file_b.c ... file_n.c -o file % opt -inline -inline-threshold=1000 < file.bc | llc -march=c > outfile.c Can anyone tell me how llvm determines if a function should be inlined, and what roll does "inline-threshold" play ? (Does the example mean that if the function body has fewer than 1000 instructions,

Andy and I briefly discussed this the other day, we have not yet got chance to list a detailed pass order for the pre- and post- IPO scalar optimizations. This is wish-list in our mind: pre-IPO: based on the ordering he propose, get rid of the inlining (or just inline tiny func), get rid of all loop xforms... post-IPO: get rid of inlining, or maybe we still need it, only

Hi, We use LLVM libraries to compile C++ code and noticed slow downs when multiple threads of a process were compiling at once. *perf *indicated that most of the CPU time was spent in a spin lock, which was being locked/unlocked from llvm::PassRegistry::getPassInfo(). We read the relevant LLVM code and found out that PassRegistry is a ManagedStatic and is shared among all threads in case of a

Hello, We've had a high priority feature request from a number of our customers to provide per-function optimization in our Clang/LLVM compiler. I would be interested in working with the community to implement this. The idea is to allow the optimization level to be overridden for specific functions. The rest of this proposal is organized as follows: - Section 1. describes this new feature

Hi, Some time in the last few weeks I noticed my cmake build of svn-trunk on powerpc-darwin8 start to warn about atomics being unavailable and thus building thread-unsafe. I just looked into it and found an easy solution, using the atomic functions in <libkern/OSAtomic.h> in /usr/include. The attached patch does this and also modifies the cmake and autoconf tests to 'pass'

I am investigating some inlining issue, so I did llvm-gcc aaa.c bbb.c ... nnn.c -o output opt -inline -inline-threshold=xxx < output.bc | llc -march=c > output_inline.c 1) I noticed that even if I set xxx to 0 or even a very small negative number, many functions are eliminated. I am wondering if these functions are inlined by the frontend, or identified as deadcode. For instance,

On the trunk I am getting some errors which are killing the rest of the build: 2>Atomic.cpp(49) : error C2664: 'InterlockedCompareExchange' : cannot convert parameter 1 from 'volatile llvm::sys::cas_flag *' to 'volatile LONG *' 2> Types pointed to are unrelated; conversion requires reinterpret_cast, C-style cast or function-style cast 2>Atomic.cpp(62) :

This didn't work as I tried with 197.parser. it works without "-Wl,-disable-opt" switch though. [197.parser]$ llvm-gcc analyze-linkage.c and.c build-disjuncts.c extract-links.c fast-match.c idiom.c main.c massage.c parse.c post-process.c print.c prune.c read-dict.c utilities.c xalloc.c word-file.c strncasecmp.c -Wa,-disable-opt -Wl,-disable-opt -lm -o llvm_parser [197.parser]$

Hi, Sean: I'm sorry I lie. I didn't mean to lie. I did try to avoid making a *BIG* change to the IPO pass-ordering for now. However, when I make a minor change to populateLTOPassManager() by separating module-pass and non-module-passes, I saw quite a few performance difference, most of them are degradations. Attacking these degradations one by one in a piecemeal manner is wasting

Hi all, I was looking around in the lib/Transforms/Utils dir and ran into the BasicInliner class. Seeing a large similarity between it and the SimpleInliner Pass, I grep'd around for BasicInliner, but it doesn't seem to be used. The difference between them seems that SimpleInliner is a pass that looks at all functions, while BasicInliner is not a pass and looks only at explicitely given

Hello, I'm trying to improve SimpleInliner to use information given by __builtin_expect instruction (It would be better to not to inline if a call instruction is unlikely to be executed). The problem here is that it is not possible to compute control dependency relationship between the annotated branch instruction and callsites using PostDominatorTree, because PostDominatorTree is a function

Long Fei wrote: > > I am investigating some inlining issue, so I did > > llvm-gcc aaa.c bbb.c ... nnn.c -o output > opt -inline -inline-threshold=xxx < output.bc | llc -march=c > > output_inline.c I am unsure of whether the LLVM GCC frontend does any inlining. However, I do know that your methods above run the LLVM inlining pass, albeit indirectly. If you use

LLVM (2.7 release version) provides 2 implementations for inlining function callsites: - InlineSimple.cpp (-inline): inline simple callsites according to its cost analysis - InlineAlways.cpp (-always-inline): inline all callsites that are marked with "always_inline" attribute. They are both subclasses of Inline.cpp that assumes the function's definition (body) is

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Long Fei wrote: > > This didn't work as I tried with 197.parser. it works without > "-Wl,-disable-opt" switch though. > > [197.parser]$ llvm-gcc analyze-linkage.c and.c build-disjuncts.c > extract-links.c fast-match.c idiom.c main.c massage.c parse.c post-process.c > print.c prune.c read-dict.c utilities.c xalloc.c word-file.c

I am interested in analyzing the bytecode code produced for C files. By default, inlining of user and library functions (libc) is done. If I turn off inlining (-disable-inlining in gccas and gccld) then no inlining is done. I want to be able to inline user code but disallow library code to be inlined. In trying to understand the InlineSimple.cpp code, I see that library functions are

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Dale Johannesen wrote: > The defined gcc interface for this is -fno-builtin. It seems not be > to be working in llvm-gcc, however. Please file a reduced testcase in bugzilla, -Chris > >> I am interested in analyzing the bytecode code produced for C files. >> By default, inlining of user and library functions (libc) is done. If >> I turn off

Duncan: I am only superficially familiar with LLVM structure. What I am trying to find out is if functions that have a single invocation are still found in the code during the compilation. In Open64 and other compilers, there is an early inlining pass that inlines all procedures that have a single invocation site. The reasoning is that if there is a single call to a procedure, then there is not

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote: >  LLVM (2.7 release version) provides 2 implementations for inlining > function callsites: > > - InlineSimple.cpp (-inline):               inline simple callsites > according to its cost analysis > - InlineAlways.cpp (-always-inline):  inline all callsites that are > marked with

The defined gcc interface for this is -fno-builtin. It seems not be to be working in llvm-gcc, however. On Feb 20, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Cristina Cifuentes wrote: > I am interested in analyzing the bytecode code produced for C files. > By default, inlining of user and library functions (libc) is done. If > I turn off inlining (-disable-inlining in gccas and gccld) then no > inlining