similar to: building a custom plugin

Hello Guys,From this morning, I have been always trying PrintFunctionNames - an example of clang, but during compiling I was always meeting "__ZTIN5clang15PluginASTActionE", referenced from: __ZTI24PrintFunctionNamesAction in PrintFunctionNames.cpp.o.In fact, I didn't have "__ZTIN5clang15PluginASTActionE" in the symbol table, only I have was

Hello Guys,From this morning, I have been always trying PrintFunctionNames - an example of clang, but during compiling I was always meeting "__ZTIN5clang15PluginASTActionE", referenced from: __ZTI24PrintFunctionNamesAction in PrintFunctionNames.cpp.o.In fact, I didn't have "__ZTIN5clang15PluginASTActionE" in the symbol table, only I have was

Hi Michael! Thanks for your reply. I managed to add a small amount of code to PassManager to have this feature implemented. One can now turn off a pass by doing opt -disablepass=licm or clang -mllvm -disablepass=licm to turn off, for example, loop invariant code motion. I programmed the command line option to be really hidden. This maybe a useful thing to have in the trunk for people who

Hello Guys,From this morning, I have been always trying PrintFunctionNames - an example of clang, but during compiling I was always meeting "__ZTIN5clang15PluginASTActionE", referenced from: __ZTI24PrintFunctionNamesAction in PrintFunctionNames.cpp.o.In fact, I didn't have "__ZTIN5clang15PluginASTActionE" in the symbol table, only I have was

On 06/04/2012 02:00 PM, yangzhi0104 at sohu.com wrote: > Hello Guys, > > From this morning, I have been always trying PrintFunctionNames - an example of clang, but during compiling I was always meeting "__ZTIN5clang15PluginASTActionE", referenced from: > __ZTI24PrintFunctionNamesAction in PrintFunctionNames.cpp.o. > > In fact, I didn't have

Hi, I am new to LLVM and CLANG, I want to write plugin for printing detailed information about source code such as member function, function calls etc. I have referred PrintFunctionNames.cpp, and on line documentation for it, still i am confused about implementation of functions ex:- from CallGraph.cpp i want to use VisitCallExpr(CallExpr *E) and void CallGraph::print(raw_ostream &OS),

Hi everyone! First time poster here. Apologies if I am breaking some rules and please let me know so I will not break it again! I am a summer research student at the Computer Science Department at the University of Toronto and I am working on benchmarking LLVM optimizations. I tried looking for it online but was not able to find a programmatic way to toggle specific LLVM optimizations. For

> -----Original Message----- > From: meinersbur at googlemail.com [mailto:meinersbur at googlemail.com] On > Behalf Of Michael Kruse > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 3:26 PM > To: Song, Ruiling <ruiling.song at intel.com> > Cc: llvm at meinersbur.de; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: Possible bug of Alias Analysis? > > 2017-10-17 8:45 GMT+02:00 Song,

> -----Original Message----- > From: meinersbur at googlemail.com [mailto:meinersbur at googlemail.com] On > Behalf Of Michael Kruse > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 1:18 PM > To: Song, Ruiling <ruiling.song at intel.com> > Cc: Michael Kruse <llvm at meinersbur.de>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: Possible bug of Alias Analysis? > > 2017-10-18

Hm. I assumed that JumpThreading would be the primary factor in optimizing code like this. Guess not. I'll need to look into SimplifyCFG to see what prevents it from doing the same thing to the other loop: https://godbolt.org/z/F6NjdG On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 3:09 PM Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de> wrote: > I assumed the LLVM-IR behind the godbolt link represented the C code

Skipping the clang question for now, this had to be a loop pragma of some kind. One step back: what we really need is a way to express that memory accesses between iterations can be re-ordered. The code that's being compiled _is_ noalias, but we don't _have_ to use noalias semantics, e.g. loop parallel semantics are sufficient. What's missing is a way to express that past the llvm

Would you guys be open to supporting a new hint with the right semantics, like e.g. llvm.loop.noalias_accesses?! I would need to find support in clang however and the main point of support would be the loop unroller behaving as stated in the OP. On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 3:04 PM Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de> wrote: > Trivial example: > > #pragma clang loop

When I build LLVM, the message LLVMHello ignored -- Loadable modules not supported on this platform is shown and the LLVM Hello pass doesn't work. I am using Windows. Is this correct? LLVM Hello pass works only on Linux? Thanks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

2017-05-02 0:50 GMT+02:00 Eugene Zelenko via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de> wrote: >> 2017-05-01 20:16 GMT+02:00 Eugene Zelenko via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: >>> Hi, Hongbin! >>> >>> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Hongbin Zheng

2017-10-14 5:03 GMT+02:00 Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>: > FWIW: We hit a subset of this issue with MemorySSA (which subclasses value > for the MemoryAccess's, etc), and it was discussed as well during > PredicateInfo. > > NewGVN has a variant the same issue as well, where it actually creates > unattached (IE not in a basic block) new instructions just so it

I am not convinced this is a jump-threading issue, but in the domain of ScalarEvolution. ScEv would need to find out which of the exits are taken or whether it loops infinitely. One can see that it exits after 10000 iterations, but ScalarEvolution cannot tell: https://godbolt.org/z/dCqdvv Michael Am Mo., 3. Feb. 2020 um 11:56 Uhr schrieb Karl Rehm <klrehm123 at gmail.com>: > > Well

Hi Michael, Thanks for the reply. I've seen but have not used it. FWIW, the problem is not how to generate the runtime checks (although it'd be good if we can get it for free), but how to clean up the SCEVs. Does PSE do that ? Cheers, Stefanos Στις Δευ, 21 Σεπ 2020 στις 11:59 π.μ., ο/η Michael Kruse < llvmdev at meinersbur.de> έγραψε: > Have you looked into

Am Mi., 1. Juli 2020 um 05:46 Uhr schrieb MyDeveloper Day via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > I always knew "polly" was mostly clean too, and actually one of the areas I already test against, (along with lib/Format obviously). You have no other choice. Polly verifies its source formatting as part of check-polly, so every commit that violates formatting will get an

> On Aug 18, 2020, at 16:59, Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de> wrote: > > Thanks for all the work. The reductions in stores look promising. Do you also have performance numbers how much this improves the execution time? Did you observe any regressions where MSSA resulted in fewer removed stores? I did not gather numbers for execution time yet, but I’ll try to share some

i put following line in CMakeLists.txt; add_subdirectory(mypass) then used make -j9 then i used following and run on canonicalize IR $ opt -load lib/LLVMmypass.so -mypass vec-sum.preopt.ll On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:39 PM, Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de> wrote: > 2018-01-29 10:18 GMT-06:00 hameeza ahmed <hahmed2305 at gmail.com>: > > I tried writing