similar to: LLVM Build Error: Target object too big

On 12/7/16, Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowitz at cygwin.com> wrote: > On 2016-12-07 17:57, Roger Pack wrote: >> Awesome. I tried building 3.9.0 today and ran into >> >> llvm-3.9.0.src/lib/Support/Unix/Signals.inc:418:5: error: ‘Dl_info’ >> was not declared in this scope >> Dl_info dlinfo; > > Already fixed upstream: > >

Hi all, I'm trying to build passes with the PassBuilder to optimize the result of MCJIT (I assume, this is a requirement for performance). So I do this: llvm::PassBuilder passBuilder; llvm::ModulePassManager modulePassManager = passBuilder.buildPerModuleDefaultPipeline(llvm::PassBuilder::OptimizationLevel::O3); llvm::ModuleAnalysisManager moduleAnalysisManager;

Frontends _are_ using PassBuilder, but they need to hook into the default pipeline creation to insert the sanitizer passes. On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:15 PM Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com> wrote: > Hmm... frontends should be using PassBuilder anyway. > And if they are using PassBuilder then they are using PassRegistry.def as > well - all the >

Hi Philip, Thanks for the response. Under llvm-5.0.2 and llvm-6.0.1 in Debug mode, the crash hit at the same assertion: /usr/local/include/llvm/IR/PassManager.h:689: typename PassT::Result& llvm::AnalysisManager<IRUnitT, ExtraArgTs>::getResult(IRUnitT&, ExtraArgTs ...) [with PassT = llvm::InnerAnalysisManagerProxy<llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Loop,

Hi Son, PassManagerBuilder is used to populate legacy PassManagers. That role is taken over by PassBuilder for new-PM passes. Cheers, Philip 2018-04-18 13:40 GMT+02:00 Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com>: > Hi Philip, > > Thank you for your reply. So what would be the right way/API to write > out-of-tree pass? I've been using *PassManagerBuilder*, which requires a

Hi Philip, Thank you for your reply. So what would be the right way/API to write out-of-tree pass? I've been using *PassManagerBuilder*, which requires a callback refering to *legacy::PassManagerBase*, so I guess this will be no longer the good way to go? Son Tuan Vu On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 6:06 PM, Philip Pfaffe <philip.pfaffe at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Son, > > I have an

On 10/01/2018 05:01 PM, David Greene wrote: > > I think registration time is probably fine for IR/opt-level passes. For > codegen it will probably work 95% of the time but there are some cases > where we may not know at registration time whether the pass is needed or > not. I'm making the assumption that registration happens basically as > it does now, where the

This question has been submitted to stackoverflow (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51934964/function-optimization-pass) but someone suggested me that it should be submitted to llvm-dev mailing list instead. I'm sorry for the duplication. I am trying to use PassBulider and FunctionPassManager || to optimize a function in a module, what I have done is: mod = ...load module from LLVM

+ Vedant: what do you think about the last point, since Debugify is also related? Son Tuan Vu On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Philip Pfaffe <philip.pfaffe at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Son, > > PassManagerBuilder is used to populate legacy PassManagers. That role is > taken over by PassBuilder for new-PM passes. > > Cheers, > Philip > > 2018-04-18 13:40 GMT+02:00

Do you really need to build the C library for MLIR? If so, it looks like it's just a missing dependency - MPFR library. Or if you do have that library available, it's missing expected features. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:29 PM Luke A. Guest via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Here's the error: > > [1921/7570] /usr/lib/llvm/10/bin/clang++

On 10/01/2018 08:39 PM, David Greene wrote: > "Kaylor, Andrew" <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> writes: > >> What if in the registration interface we had three options: skippable, >> not skippable, and run at OptLevel::None. > I kind of like this idea. If necessary, the pass could even query the > target (or some other entity) about what OptLevel::None means.

Hi Son, I have an answer to your first question: 1, What are the differences between *LegacyPassManager* and *PassManager*? > I see that *opt* uses the former most of the times while the latter is > used via *PassBuilder* API when an user wants to build her own pipeline, > but I have no idea why so. What to use and when to use it is not clear to > me. > PassManager is the result

Hi, + Chandler, who has a lot more experience with our pass managers. > On Apr 20, 2018, at 12:56 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > + Vedant: what do you think about the last point, since Debugify is also related? Could you clarify the question? I'm not sure what it is you'd like me to chime in about. > 2, I've asked this question once but

Hi Vedant, Thanks for your reply. More comments inline. Son Tuan Vu On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > Hi, > > + Chandler, who has a lot more experience with our pass managers. > > On Apr 20, 2018, at 12:56 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > + Vedant: what do you think about the last point, since

> On Apr 20, 2018, at 1:46 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vedant, > > Thanks for your reply. More comments inline. > > Son Tuan Vu > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com <mailto:vsk at apple.com>> wrote: > Hi, > > + Chandler, who has a lot more experience with our pass managers.

Hello all, I have 2 separate questions: 1, What are the differences between *LegacyPassManager* and *PassManager*? I see that *opt* uses the former most of the times while the latter is used via *PassBuilder* API when an user wants to build her own pipeline, but I have no idea why so. What to use and when to use it is not clear to me. 2, I've asked this question once but have had no answer,

Sorry, but I strongly oppose to the road you're suggesting here. As I said before the Pass*Manager* is entirely the wrong place to handle OptNone, the absolutely the wrong design. It makes sense for function *only*, and immediately breaks down everywhere else. Frankly, OptNone should take no role in this particular discussion, and I feel like so far it has because "We've always done

Hi Everyone, Recently I have realised that compiling the file PassBuilder.cpp takes a significant amount of memory. I have seen anywhere between 700 MB to over 1GB depending on which build compiler is used. This memory consumption recently caused a couple of build bots that run on a smaller machine to run out of memory and fail to build. I have no intention of changing any of the

I have a 5 column matrix like 12 10 8 6 3 10 9 8 7 5 14 NA 4 NA NA NA 15 NA 10 NA 5 ... I want to select the position of the first entry for each row <=5 for example, for the first row, I want to select the last element and return its position as 5; for th e third row, I want to select the third element and return its position as 3; similarly for the 4th row, I want to select the fifth

What if in the registration interface we had three options: skippable, not skippable, and run at OptLevel::None. We'd need some way to communicate the OptLevel::None to the pass, but that doesn't seem terrible. -Andy -----Original Message----- From: David Greene [mailto:dag at cray.com] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2018 7:01 AM To: Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com> Cc: