similar to: Reliably mapping memcpy intrinsic

Hi all, Given a couple of lines of C++ code `int x = 42; int y = x`, we end up with the following LLVM IR instructions: %x = alloca i32, align 4 %y = alloca i32, align 4 store i32 42, i32* %x, align 4 %0 = load i32, i32* %x, align 4 store i32 %0, i32* %y, align 4 Is it possible to instrument the IR to perform a value trace? What I'd like to do is stream a log of memory copies (reads then

Hi Hal, In that case what is the best way to query whether there is a loop carried dependence between B[j] and A[j] at i-loop level? We were operating under the assumption of 'conservatively correct' behavior of alias analysis in the function scope? Thanks, Pankaj From: Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 11:50 AM To: Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at

Hello, I have just read the LLVM paper (CGO'04) and thought it was an interesting project. And, I am wondering if there exists a Java frontend (that compiles Java bytecode to LLVM code) as the paper mentioned. If there is any, what is the status of it? Pardon me if this information is obviously provided somewhere in the LLVM web site. Best regards, Hiroshi Yamauchi Purdue University

My understanding is that alias analysis returns results in the function scope, not in loop scope. Since both the phis access both global arrays, that should results in BasicAA conservatively returning MayAlias. I debugged this a little bit and narrowed it down to the section of the code in BasicAAResult::aliasPHI() which has this comment- // Analyse the PHIs' inputs under the assumption

I don't exactly remember when I last tried it and I didn't realize there was r342896. I'll check it out. Thanks. On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 1:14 PM Philip Pfaffe <philip.pfaffe at gmail.com> wrote: > > Printing was implemented in r342896. > @Hiroshi: Are there specific issues or limitations you encountered with it? > > Cheers, > Philip > > On Wed, Jul 10,

Just push :) On Tue, May 12, 2020, 8:46 AM Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> wrote: > I was also using "git llvm push" to commit, sort of out of habit. What's a > recommended, alternative way to push? > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:57 AM Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> I was actually using `git

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:20 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 05/11/2018 08:40 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:49 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> >> wrote: >>

Hi Hiroshi, Thanks for that. I find “rebase” difficult to use. Maybe I don’t understand it, but it always causes a lot ‘conflicts’ that are very hard to fix according to my experience. I have another question though. LLVM requires that reviewed patches are pushed as a /single/ commit with a standardised message, particularly specifying the Differential Revision url as part of the commit message.

I had a chance to try -print-after-all with NPM. It seems like there's still no output for the passes before objc-arc-contract (which is basically what I saw before.) Does anyone else see this? Are we talking about the same thing? *** IR Dump After ObjC ARC contraction *** *** IR Dump After Pre-ISel Intrinsic Lowering *** *** IR Dump After Expand Atomic instructions *** *** IR Dump After

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:49 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:24

On 8/6/19 7:31 PM, Fedor Sergeev via llvm-dev wrote: > > > On 8/6/19 3:02 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi via llvm-dev wrote: >> I had a chance to try -print-after-all with NPM. >> >> It seems like there's still no output for the passes >> before objc-arc-contract (which is basically what I saw before.) Does >> anyone else see this? >> >> Are we

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:24 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:15 AM

On 8/7/19 6:20 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote: > I basically run "clang > -fexperimental-new-pass-manager -print-after-all ..." > > It's conceivable that something is different in our setup or in clang > (from opt)... I'll see if I can reproduce it outside our setup. Does it depend on machine architecture? I generally use x86... regards,   Fedor. > > Thanks.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread - I would like to see something like D41574 in the optimizer. It's optimizing code that no other pass does currently, and I don't see any other near-term proposal that gets us those optimizations. Omer, can you rebase that to trunk? I think a header has moved, so it doesn't build as-is. I'd like to know if it can catch the cases in D45842. If

-print-after-all is very useful for debugging and learning about LLVM. I would hope that would be implemented for the new PM before removing the old PM. I'd personally consider it a blocker. -Troy > -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Eric Christopher > via llvm-dev > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 7:40 PM > To:

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:15 AM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> ( >>> ​I came across this issue in

@Zola, Eric, I really feel the communication and reasoning here is problematic. From my perspective, you removed stuff "we don't need", ignoring whether it is used, and then let people figure out how to deal with the result. What I most dislike about the process most is how questions and concerns are then ignored or played down. Thanks,   Johannes On 5/12/20 2:10 PM,

On 05/11/2018 08:40 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev wrote: > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com > <mailto:yamauchi at google.com>> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:49 PM Daniel Berlin > <dberlin at dberlin.org <mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org>> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May

For some reason this thread seems to be gone in a wrong direction. I'm sorry for that. The discussion on the RFC asked for a reason to keep the script, I think we heard reasons to do so (due to branches). Now, I was unable to determine if the `git llvm` scripts was removed "just as part of the bunch" or if we expect a problem with the script. If it is the former, are there

On 3/4/19 10:49 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 10:55 AM Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com > <mailto:yamauchi at google.com>> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 12:58 AM Fedor Sergeev > <fedor.sergeev at azul.com <mailto:fedor.sergeev at azul.com>> wrote: > > > > On 3/2/19 2:38 AM,