similar to: [LLVMdev] InstMetrics would look a lot like NoTTI

FWIW, this all makes perfect sense from a philosophical point of view. If anything, I think it is absolutely critical to differentiate the very interface this exposes from the TTI interfaces. The latter should be cost functions, that are as accurate as we can make them while remaining largely "conservative" (IE, don't assume any clever brilliance is the chip or backend; what is the

Does LLVM have loop multiversioning ? it seems it does not with clang++ -O3 -mllvm -debug-pass=Arguments program.c -c bash-4.1$ clang++ -O3 -mllvm -debug-pass=Arguments fast_algorithms.c -c clang-3.6: warning: treating 'c' input as 'c++' when in C++ mode, this behavior is deprecated Pass Arguments: -datalayout -notti -basictti -x86tti -targetlibinfo -no-aa -tbaa -scoped-noalias

add -basicaa to your command line :) On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Willy WOLFF <willy.mh.wolff at gmail.com> wrote: > I play a bit more with MemoryDependenceAnalysis by wrapping my pass, and > call explicitely BasicAliasAnalysis. Its still using No Alias Analysis. > > How can I let MemoryDependenceAnalysis use BasicAliasAnalysis? > > Please, find attached my pass. >

Hi, I noticed many functions in the TargetTransformInfo interface are duplicates of those already in TargetLowering (e.g. isTruncateFree). Is the expectation really that targets will reimplement the same functions twice? AArch64’s TTI uses some TLI calls in some of its implementations, but why doesn’t the base TargetTransformInfo call the TargetLowering versions by default? - Matt

Thanks to you both. On my Linux (centos6) system, I have reproduce a variant of the bug and learned about -plugin-opt=-debug-pass=Arguments which I infer from comments is intended to built arguments to “opt” however I found that some of the arguments don’t seem to be quite correct. I assume this just minor bit rot. bin/opt -o pass1.bc -datalayout -notti -basictti -x86tti -targetlibinfo

0 down vote favorite <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34049511/how-to-pass-optimization-passes-to-clang#> I'm trying to debug an issue for a new target where a testcase fails with -O1 optimization and passes with -O0 optimization. I got a list of optimization passes being performed when 'clang -O1' is called like this: llvm-as < /dev/null | opt -O1 -disable-output

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jingyue Wu" <jingyue at google.com> > To: "songlh" <songlh at cs.wisc.edu>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:50:12 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] how to choose which alias analysis used in my pass? > > > Isn't -basicaa the default alias analysis already? No, -basicaa is added

On 01/07/2015 12:17 PM, Pete Cooper wrote: > >> On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com >> <mailto:arsenm2 at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com >>> <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On

Hi, I try to use MemoryDependenceAnalysis in a pass to analyse a simple function: void fct (int *restrict*restrict M, int *restrict*restrict L) { S1: M[1][1] = 1; S2: L[2][2] = 2; } When I iterate over MemoryDependenceAnalysis on the S2 statement, I get the load instruction for the first depth of the array, that’s ok. But I get also the load and store for the S1 statement. I assume the

Hi Frank, On Oct 26, 2013, at 6:29 PM, Frank Winter <fwinter at jlab.org> wrote: > I would need this to work when calling the vectorizer through > the function pass manager. Unfortunately I am having the same > problem there: I am not sure which function pass manager you are referring here. I assume you create your own (you are not using opt but configure your own pass

Hi Arnold, thanks for the detailed setup. Still, I haven't figured out the right thing to do. I would need only the native target since all generated code will execute on the JIT execution machine (right now, the old JIT interface). There is no need for other targets. Maybe it would be good to ask specific questions: How do I get the triple for the native target? How do I setup the

If I have an object `obj` that is a SpecTask, and subsequently invoke it, is there a way to programmatically determine the number of tests that were successful, failed, and pending as a result of running that SpecTask? -- John Feminella Principal Consultant, Distilled Brilliance

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Darr247 <darr247 at gmail.com> wrote: > On 07 January 2015 @01:37 zulu, Always Learning wrote: >> >> You seem to forget. Computers were invented to perform repetitive tasks. > > > Or maybe, some of us just seem to remember it differently. > In my opinion, robots/automatons were invented to perform repetitive tasks; > computers

I'll comment from the perspective of someone that is in the Mesa, #dri-devel, #radeon channels myself and have watched their behaviour over the years. This is a real person that spams a load of information into a channel about their understanding of how hardware works. I have no idea what their goal is for spamming this information, could be some desire for acceptance from perceived smartness.

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1143 Summary: connections with "sshd: root at notty" is established but not closed Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 3.9p1 Platform: ix86 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P2 Component: Kerberos support

I would need this to work when calling the vectorizer through the function pass manager. Unfortunately I am having the same problem there: LV: The Widest type: 32 bits. LV: The Widest register is: 32 bits. It's not picking the target information, although I tried with and without the target triple in the module. Any idea what could be wrong? Frank On 26/10/13 15:54, Hal Finkel wrote:

On Jan 3, 2015, at 11:52 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 2, 2015, at 8:32 PM, David Callahan <dcallahan at fb.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am new to the LLVM dev community so forgive a perhaps obvious question. I am looking at bug 17623 which is an LTO/optimizer interaction bug. I am working on a Mac with Xcode installed but have

Moving to llvm-dev... On Jan 21, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Manish Verma <manish.verma at arm.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > I have been able track down the reason for the difference in output > generated by > opt. The difference is caused when the target triple specified in the > test-case > is not a supported target for opt/clang/llvm. In this case, opt doesn't thow > an

----- Original Message ----- > >>> LV: The Widest type: 32 bits. > >>> LV: The Widest register is: 32 bits. > > Yep, we don’t pick up the right TTI. > > Try -march=x86-64 (or leave it out) you already have this info in the > triple. > > Then it should work (does for me with your example below). That may depend on what CPU is picks by default; Frank,

It isn't relevant, really, Matt just brought up "llc --version" as a way to show the default triple and native cpu. The same question ("Which TTI do/should we get with -mcpu=generic / when not providing -mcpu at all") applies to opt. On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com> wrote: > Why is llc relevant to this thread, is this just an