similar to: RFC: Enabling Module passes post-ISel

Hi all, I like all the ideas so far. Here are my thoughts: I think that fundamentally users of LLVM should be able to opt-in to more aggressive or intensive computation at compile time if they wish. Users' needs differ, and while a 33% increase in clang LTO is absolutely out of the question for some people, for those developing microcontrollers or HPC applications that may well be

Hi, In the initial thread of the proposal for GlobalISel, I have mentioned that it may be interesting to have a kind of MachineModulePass. Marcello mentioned this would be useful for their current pipeline. I am interested in knowing: 1. If anyone else is interested for such concept? 2. What kind of information should we make accessible in an hypothetical MachineModule? I.e., how do you plan to

On 3/18/16 12:33 PM, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi Vivek, > >> On Mar 16, 2016, at 1:00 PM, vivek pandya via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> Probably this may be too late to start thinking about this project >> but I think this is particularly useful

Hi Quentin, > On 22 Jan 2016, at 15:16, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com> wrote: > 1. If anyone else is interested for such concept? yes, we are! (https://github.com/t-crest) > 2. What kind of information should we make accessible in an hypothetical MachineModule? I.e., how do you plan to use the MachineModulePass so that we make the right design decisions for the

On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 04:58:45PM -0800, Mehdi Amini wrote: > > > On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > We have profiled [1] the memory usage in LLVM when LTO'ing Chromium, and > > we've found that one of the top consumers of memory is the DWARF emitter in

Hello, Probably this may be too late to start thinking about this project but I think this is particularly useful feature for LLVM. A quick use I can think of this is Implementing Inter-procedural Register Allocation ( for Research purpose ). I have start looking at the code for MachineFunctionPass, I think currently MachineModule class is not available ( the project work will include that ) but

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:51 PM Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Feb 5, 2016, at 5:40 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 04:58:45PM -0800, Mehdi Amini wrote: > >> > >>> On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Feb 5, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:51 PM Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> > On Feb 5, 2016, at 5:40 PM, Peter Collingbourne

Hi all, We have profiled [1] the memory usage in LLVM when LTO'ing Chromium, and we've found that one of the top consumers of memory is the DWARF emitter in lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/Dwarf*. I've been reading the DWARF emitter code and I have a few ideas in mind for how to reduce its memory consumption. One idea I've had is to restructure the emitter so that (for the most part) it

Hi, On 06/10/2013 09:13 AM, Jonas Wagner wrote: > Hi, > > I know that backend processes one function at a time, > is it somehow possible to do there a whole program analysis, > or could you give me some guidelines? > > The backend introduces a MachineFunctionPass, from which point on it is only possible to run FunctionPasses, otherwise the machine functions

Hi, I know that backend processes one function at a time, > is it somehow possible to do there a whole program analysis, > or could you give me some guidelines? > There are different kinds of LLVM passes: Those that process a function at a time (FunctionPass), but also those that work on the call graph (CallGraphSCCPass) or on an entire module (ModulePass). These are described in the

Maybe adjust this to be different for –Os, -Oz than for –O2? Kevin Smith From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of James Molloy via llvm-dev Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 4:05 PM To: Steve King <steve at metrokings.com>; Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Recent -Os code

Hello everyone, we are planning to implement a stronger alias analysis for backend, because e.g. for VLIW architectures, this is our main performance limitation. I would have 2 questions regarding this. I know that backend processes one function at a time, is it somehow possible to do there a whole program analysis, or could you give me some guidelines? Which alias analysis algorithm

Hi everyone, Since I haven't said anything on the mailing list before, a quick introduction. I'm an intern at Apple, and over the summer I implemented a prototype for an outlining pass for code size in LLVM. Now I'm seeking to eventually upstream it. I have the preliminary code on GitHub right now, but it's still very prototypical (see the code section).

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 5:06 PM, James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk> wrote: > > Hi, > > We'd need to look precisely at what's causing the code size bloat. The midend commit pointed out by Steve shouldn't cause bloat in and of itself - it should reduce code size. It removes a load of stores and branches. > > I know a backend change I made to ARM isn't

*Vivek Pandya* On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Vivek, > > On Mar 16, 2016, at 1:00 PM, vivek pandya via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > Probably this may be too late to start thinking about this project but I > think this is particularly useful feature for LLVM. >

Hi folks, I'm trying to figure out the return address of a function in an LLVM pass, i.e., the byte address right after the end of the call instruction (so that I can initialize a global variable with the return address of a function for a sanity check). Due to some other constraints, I have to run this pass in somewhere in the midend. At a high level, I want to find the address after a call

> On May 10, 2016, at 6:06 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > > > From: "vivek pandya" <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> > To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Tim Amini Golling" <mehdi.amini at apple.com>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Quentin Colombet" <qcolombet

Hello everyone, As I mentioned in my previous posts,I am using a machinefunction pass to find all the loops in the program and do some analysis on them. I have completed my pass now and it works correctly. but the only issue is that,I have noticed that if I have two functions in my program, and one of them is part of the loop for another one ,by using runonmachinefunction(), I will get one loop

*Vivek Pandya* On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:02 AM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: > > > *Vivek Pandya* > > > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > wrote: > >> >> On May 10, 2016, at 6:06 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >> >> >>