similar to: Question on target-features

Ugh, that would be a “yes” then… -- Krzysztof Parzyszek kparzysz at quicinc.com<mailto:kparzysz at quicinc.com> AI tools development From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 10:05 AM To: Dangeti Tharun kumar <cs15mtech11002 at iith.ac.in>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: [EXT] Re:

Hi, The call graphs generated by "*llvm-xray graph*" has function names, while the "*llvm-xray graph-diff*" doesn't shows function names. This is the command I am using llvm-xray graph-diff xray-log.clang.1 xray-log.clang.2 -instr-map=../xray-build/bin/clang -o diff.dot Attached is the portion of the generated diff graph. Am I missing any flag? [image: graph_diff.jpg]

Hi, I am working with SCEVs, I see the unsigned division of SCEVs, it is not immediately clear to me why the signed division of SCEV expressions is not supported by SE? I would appreciate if some could clarify or point me to some links. -- Regards, DTharun -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, I have a doubt regarding *getAnalysisUsage.* My assumption is that, as analysis passes will not change the IR, all the passes required by an analysis pass should be preserved. Say, I have an analysis pass which requires another analysis pass called *SomeAnalysis* and I have not added *AU.addPreserved<SomeAnalysis>() *to my pass. Would the pass manager still considers the *SomeAnlaysis

Hi Dean, I have tried with -instr-map-1 and -instr-map-2, it didn't work. Is there a way to find the function name from the identifier? -DTharun On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 2:29 PM Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dangeti, > > That's interesting -- can you try providing both `-instr-map-1=` and > `-instr-map-2=` even though they're the same

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 3:21 PM Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 8:43 PM Dangeti Tharun kumar > <cs15mtech11002 at iith.ac.in> wrote: > > > > Hi Dean, > > > > I have tried with -instr-map-1 and -instr-map-2, it didn't work. > > > > Yeah, I'm looking through the code and it looks like

Dear LLVM Community, I am D Tharun Kumar, masters student at Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad, working in a team to improve current vectorizer in LLVM. As an initial study, we are studying various benchmarks to analyze and compare vectorizing capabilities of LLVM, GCC and ICC. We found that vectorization remarks given by LLVM are vague and brief, comparatively GCC and ICC are giving

On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 3:31 PM Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: > > Yes, I am compiling for linux system. > > So the RA will not consider assigning a scratch register to a live range > crossing function call, though it may reduce spills? > Well, it has to spill the register – otherwise it could be clobbered by a > call. May be, I haven't

Hi Dangeti, Ramakrishna, Adam, and Gerolf, >Yes this is an area that needs further improvement. We have some immediate plans to make these more useful. See the recent llvm-dev threads [1], [2]. It takes a lot of dedicated effort to make vectorization report easier to understand by ordinary programmers (i.e., those who are not compiler writers). Having done that for ICC ourselves, we truly

Hello, I have studied register allocation in theoretical aspects and exploring the same in the implementation level. I need a minimal testcase for register spilling to analyze spilling procedure in llvm. I tried with a testcase taking 20 variables but all the 20 variables are getting stored in the stack using %rbp. Maybe my live variable analysis is wrong. Please help me with a minimal testcase

> On Oct 10, 2016, at 2:50 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > > From: "Dangeti Tharun kumar via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> > To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Cc: "Santanu Das" <cs15mtech11018 at iith.ac.in <mailto:cs15mtech11018 at

Hi On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:47 PM Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com> wrote: > At a first glance I see nothing obviously wrong with the assembly, but it > is a big file. So if you have a specific part in mind, please copy into the > E-Mail discussion. > > I assume you are compiling for a mac or linux system? In that case none of > the xmm registers are callee saved (as

Dear community, Our team at IITH have been experimenting with loop-distribution pass in LLVM. We see the following results on few benchmarks. clang -O3 -mllvm -enable-loop-distribute -Rpass=loop-distribute file.c clang -O3 -mllvm -enable-loop-distribute -Rpass-analysis=loop-distribute file.c TORCH

Tried a bunch of them there (x86-64, haswell, znver2) and they all defaulted to 4-wide - haswell additionally caused some extra loop unrolling but still with 8-wide pows. Cheers, -Neil. On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 2:39 PM Roman Lebedev <lebedev.ri at gmail.com> wrote: > Did you specify the target CPU the code should be optimized for? > For clang that is -march=native/znver2/... /

Johannes, I tried the last one and it gave me this: error: unknown target CPU 'XYZ' note: valid target CPU values are: nocona, core2, penryn, bonnell, atom, silvermont, slm, goldmont, goldmont-plus, tremont, nehalem, corei7, westmere, sandybridge, corei7-avx, ivybridge, core-avx-i, haswell, core-avx2, broadwell, skylake, skylake-avx512, skx, cascadelake,

It is my actual target architecture ________________________________ From: Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 1:30 PM To: J S Cc: via llvm-dev Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Generating object files more efficiently I copied "-march=XYZ" from your original email, you have to replace it with your actual target architecture or simply drop it.

So for us we use SLEEF to actually implement the libcalls (LLVM intrinsics) that LLVM by default would generate - and since SLEEF has highly optimal 8-wide pow, optimized for AVX and AVX2, we really want to use that. So we would not see 4/8 libcalls and instead see 1 call to something that lights up the ymm registers. I guess the problem then is that the default expectation is that pow would be

Hi I have been facing a strange connectivity problem from CentOS and Fedora boxes. When I telnet to $ telnet adp.eease.com 443 it works fine some times and every 5-10 tries or so it says connection refused. And this does not happen from my windows box. Can anyone from this list try this on their linux installation and see if they get the same behaviour? Thanks Tharun

-march for clang and -march for llc do different things unfortunately. -march for clang at least on x86 is the same as -mcpu in llc. Which is an artifact of gcc compatibility. ~Craig On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 1:40 PM Doerfert, Johannes via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Oh, my bad. > > > Idk why llc seems to know that architecture but clang does not. > >

Hi, I need to run /bin/mount and /sbin/mount.cifs commands as nobody user (it has (bin/bash shell). So, I've edited /etc/sudoers and added: Cmnd_Alias CMD_MOUNT = /bin/mount Cmnd_Alias CMD_CIFS ) = /sbin/mount.cifs nobody ALL = NOPASSWD: CMD_MOUNT nobody ALL = NOPASSWD: CMD_CIFS But when I run the command as nobody (in the shell), I get the error: "mount