similar to: Running verify between every opt pass?

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, On 08/07/2015 10:30 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: [...] > Depends. What is the exact declaration of format_long? > > > In the input .ll file it is: > > ; Function Attrs: minsize optsize > define internal i16 @format_long(i16* %res.8.par, i16 %base.9.par, > i32 %x.10.par) #3 { > > which is later changed somewhere in opt to: > > ;

Hi Quentin and llvm-dev, I've got a regalloc-related question that you might have an opinion or answer about. In our out-of-tree target we've been doing some bundling before register allocation for quite some time now, and last night a new problem popped up. What the fix should be depends on if this bundle is legal or not: BUNDLE %vreg39<imp-def,dead> *

> >> You can look at AddOptimizationPasses() in opt.cpp. > > > > As far as I understand, the two passmanager do not interleave their > > passes. It first runs all the function passes and below. Then all the > > module passes. So if you specify: > > > > opt -mymodulepass0 -myfunctionpass -mymodulepass1 > > > > What you actually get is:

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I am writing an interprocedural compiler pass. Because the passneeds > information from a FunctionPass, e.g., the post-dominance frontier > (PDF), and because a ModulePass is not permitted to require a > FunctionPass, I am forced to make my pass a FunctionPass and do majority > of its work in the doFinalization() method. ok > When

I also tried iterating through the functions of the module and calling verifyFunction(), which also returns false, but does not cause an abort or report anything to stderr about what caused the verification to fail. From the doxygen for verifyFunction() and verifyModule(), it seems like they both should print information to stderr if the verification fails and should abort opt if

I followed what you said and called verifyModule() with the AbortProcessAction option. verifyModule() returns false, but does not abort and does not print out any information about what caused the verification to fail. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: >> I am writing an interprocedural compiler pass. Because the passneeds >> information from a

I think I misread the doxygen. verifyFunction & verifyModule return false if no errors are detected. However, my question now becomes why does the code produced by my transform pass verification, but it causes an assertion failure in the byte reader when it (the code produced by my transform) is passed to another invocation of opt? Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I also tried iterating

Hi, On 03/30/2016 11:38 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: > >> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:35, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com >> <mailto:mikael.holmen at ericsson.com>> wrote: >> >> i16 (divm16_pseudo …) >> >> stuff? >> >> I've tried >> (i16, i16 (divm16_pseudo i16:$src1, i16:$src2) >> and >> ((i16, i16)

Hi, My target has a special configuration register that many instructions read implicitly, configuring for example if an add instruction should saturate at over/underflow or not. Now, I have a problem where the MachineCSE removes a setting of this configuration register in a basic block, because MachineCSE::isPhysDefTriviallyDead can't find any uses of it in the basic block where

I am writing an interprocedural compiler pass. Because the passneeds information from a FunctionPass, e.g., the post-dominance frontier (PDF), and because a ModulePass is not permitted to require a FunctionPass, I am forced to make my pass a FunctionPass and do majority of its work in the doFinalization() method. When I run "opt -mypass -verify -o code2.bc code1.bc" I get no

Hi, Also, I think there is a bigger problem lurking than just with norecurse. I think that in general, functionattrs is not very good with attributes when intrinsics are present. E.g. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34696 Here dbg.value prevents both norecurse and readnone from being deduced. So, it would be nice to fix this for norecurse, but it would be even nicer to fix it for

On 03/30/2016 11:51 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: > >> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:43, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 03/30/2016 11:38 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: >>> >>>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:35, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com >>>> <mailto:mikael.holmen at

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:43, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 03/30/2016 11:38 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: >> >>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:35, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com >>> <mailto:mikael.holmen at ericsson.com>> wrote: >>> >>> i16 (divm16_pseudo …) >>>

On 07/15/2019 04:01 AM, Mikael Holmén via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi, > > Same thing for me, as I described here: > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20190708/279184.html > > I think the problem is that the patch assumes that if sys/inotify.h > exists, then IN_EXCL_UNLINK is defined in it. > > But I think that there are old versions of inotify.h

Hi, TL;DR: A loop doesn't get vectorized due to the interaction of loop- rotate, licm and instcombine. What to do about it? Full story: In the benchmarks for our out-of-tree target we have a case that we would like to get vectorized, but currently it isn't. I've done some digging to see why and have some kind of idea what prevents it, but I don't know what the best way to fix

Looks like I can't access git, documentation, bugs... I'm not sure if this email will actually go through. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20171009/e63b709a/attachment.html>

Hi, A few days ago I stumbled upon a problem where SpeculativeExecution changed the order of a load and a store to the same address. I wrote https://bugs.llvm.org//show_bug.cgi?id=32964 about it but no response there so far. In the input we have store i8 0, i8* @i %.pre = load i8, i8* @i and then in the output the load is moved so it's before the store which clearly makes it

Hi, I'm trying to run the benchmark suite: http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html#test-suite-quickstart I'm doing it the lnt way, as described at: http://llvm.org/docs/lnt/quickstart.html I don't know what to expect but the results seems to be quite noisy and unstable. E.g I've done two runs on two different commits that only differ by a space in CODE_OWNERS.txt on my 12

Hi, On 03/30/2016 11:15 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: > >> On Mar 30, 2016, at 09:33, Mikael Holmén via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On my out-of-tree target I have an intrinsic >> >> def int_phx_divm_u16 : Intrinsic<[llvm_any_ty], >> [llvm_i16_ty, llvm_i16_ty], >>