similar to: status of IPO/IPCP?

Sean Silva via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > No tests fail with the patch below, so I would say it's pretty useless. It > seems that the C bindings are the only user but we can probably just have them > return IPSCCP instead. I don't necessarily think your conclusion is wrong, but the patch isn't proving what you think it's proving. In fact, the

Hi, As far as I know, the ipconstprop pass has not been actively used in years and ipsccp has been used instead. This has the potential for confusion and sometimes leads people to spend time finding & reporting bugs as well as updating it to work with the latest API changes. If there are people actively using it, I would love to hear. If no-ones using it, I’d propose to remove the dead

Hi, I used the following commands on the program attached below: llvm-gcc --emit-llvm main.c -c -o main.bc opt -ipconstprop main.bc -o main1.bc diff main.bc main1.bc no difference was o/p :( The Program Segment is as shown below: #include <stdio.h> void f1(int a) { a=a+1; printf("%d",a); } void f2() { int b; b=1; f1(b); } int main() { int

On 7/14/20 4:34 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev wrote: > > On 7/14/20 11:28 AM, Fangqing Du wrote: >> Thank you Hal and Stefan! >> >> Bug report is filed: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46717 >> <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46717> >> >> And Stefan, >> I think 'attributor' is a really nice pass, and can infer more >>

Which transformation passes are 'safe', meaning it does not worsens the effectiveness of a later pass or the generated code? I imagine all passes which either removes data or add attributes are included in this list, plus some simplification passes: -adce -argpromotion -constmerge -constprop -deadargelim -dse -functionattrs -globaldce -globalopt -gvn -instcombine -internalize

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > We need to disable most forms of IPO on naked functions. We already do this > in DeadArgElimination.cpp. We need to do it in more places. > +1. Carlo, can you please open a bug? -- Davide "There are no solved problems; there are only problems that are more or less solved"

On 2017-01-30 18:41, Davide Italiano wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> We need to disable most forms of IPO on naked functions. We already do this >> in DeadArgElimination.cpp. We need to do it in more places. >> > > +1. Carlo, can you please open a bug? > Done

Hi all, I read the setup at http://www.blackh0le.net/articles/vpn-dun-howto.html to setup my VPN. However, I'm having a problem which I think is proxy-ARP not working. I like to ask you to see if you know what's going on. When I ping 10.77.1.1 from windows XP machine the packets get to the 10.77.1.1 machine, but they don't have a return path to get back. When I do ping the windows

I'm wondering if I'm seeing a regression of 5616 with 3.4.8. I'm trying to set-up pptpd with winbind, which I'm doing on two machines on Debian lenny, and I'm trying on Debian Squeeze now. The Windows client is saying "Error 778: It was not possible to verify the identity of the server." The logs say that everything is ok, and that the client is hanging up the

I have a problem where I add an Andersens AA pass to the pass manager, but it appears to get invalidated by another pass, and never rerun. My understanding from reading the documentation is that when a pass gets invalidated, it should be rerun before any other passes that requires it. Here is a simple example of the problem I am seeing: PassManager passManager; passManager.add(new

Hi Devang, > You can do inlining even when flag_unit_at_a_time is off. And one can > enable unit-at-a-time without enabling any optimizations. The unit-at- > a-time is not meant to select optimization passes, though it may > influence selection. this flag is used quite a bit in llvm-backend.cpp, for example: if (flag_unit_at_a_time) {

All, I'm working on an improvement to the inline cost model, but I'm unsure how to proceed. Let me begin by first describing the problem I'm trying to solve. Consider the following pseudo C code: *typedef struct element { unsigned idx; } element_t; * *static inline unsigned char fn2 (element_t *dst_ptr, const element_t *a_ptr, const element_t *b_ptr,

Looking through some of the remaining test failures under the new pass manager, I've narrowed down one of the failures in GWPAsan(!) to the fact that the new pass manager doesn't properly skip passes like the old pass manager. For example, when a function is marked optnone, or when using https://llvm.org/docs/OptBisect.html. Lots of passes (e.g. SROA) will do the following under the

Hi Devang, > > this flag is used quite a bit in llvm-backend.cpp, for example: > > > > if (flag_unit_at_a_time) { > > PM->add(createGlobalOptimizerPass()); // Optimize out > > global vars > > PM->add(createGlobalDCEPass()); // Remove unused > > fns and globs > >

Hi all, Let's see an example (from Alexandre Isoard) first: **************************************************************************************** ; RUN: opt -ipsccp -deadargelim -licm -O2 -S < %s @g = internal global i32 0 ; Function Attrs: argmemonly define internal void @foo(i32* nonnull dereferenceable(4) %arg, i32 %val) #0 { entry: store i32 %val, i32* %arg ret void } define

Thank you Hal and Stefan! Bug report is filed: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46717 And Stefan, I think 'attributor' is a really nice pass, and can infer more precise and useful attributes, which may give more opportunities for optimization. But we shouldn't depend on 'attributor' to correct wrong function attributes, because we cannot run 'attributor' after

I fell over this issue yesterday myself with lots of asserts being thrown. I think the issue is in lib/IR/AsmWriter.cpp:1618 in the function AssemblyWriter::printFunction(const Function *F) Looking at the code I think the 2nd for loop should be preceded by the test ... if (Idx < AS.getNumSlots()) Not sure why it doesn't fail on other platforms as it looks like it should be a genuine

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 9 May 2006, Nick Lewycky wrote: > >> For an analysis pass, I'm interested in reading the lattice values >> calculated by SCCP. Should I split the current SCCP optimization into an >> analysis piece and the optimization that depends on it, so that I can >> use its analysis results? > > SCCP is already split into an SCCPSolver

On Apr 16, 2008, at 1:02 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Devang, > >> You can do inlining even when flag_unit_at_a_time is off. And one can >> enable unit-at-a-time without enabling any optimizations. The unit- >> at- >> a-time is not meant to select optimization passes, though it may >> influence selection. > > this flag is used quite a bit in

Hi, On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Sanjiv Gupta<sanjiv.gupta at microchip.com> wrote: > Is the patch below ok? > > Index: LLVMCConfigurationEmitter.cpp > =================================================================== > --- LLVMCConfigurationEmitter.cpp    (revision 80668) > +++ LLVMCConfigurationEmitter.cpp    (working copy) > @@ -1141,6 +1141,7 @@ >