[llvm-dev] Relationship between clang, opt and llc

Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Jan 8 09:48:30 PST 2018 

2018-01-08 8:59 GMT-08:00 toddy wang <wenwangtoddy at gmail.com>:

>
>
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2018-01-08 8:41 GMT-08:00 toddy wang <wenwangtoddy at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hi Medhi,
>>>
>>> It seems -mllvm does not work as expected. Anything wrong?
>>>
>>> [twang15 at c92 temp]$ clang++ -O3 -mllvm *-deadargelim* LULESH.cc
>>> clang (LLVM option parsing): Unknown command line argument
>>> '-deadargelim'.  Try: 'clang (LLVM option parsing) -help'
>>> clang (LLVM option parsing): Did you mean '-regalloc'?
>>>
>>> [twang15 at c92 temp]$ clang++ -O3 -mllvm *deadargelim* LULESH.cc
>>> clang (LLVM option parsing): Unknown command line argument
>>> 'deadargelim'.  Try: 'clang (LLVM option parsing) -help'
>>>
>>
>> You can't schedule passes this way, only set parameters
>> like -unroll-threshold=<uint> etc.
>>
>> Where can I find options like  -unroll-threshold=<uint>? I cannot find it
> in either opt -help or clang -help.
>

This one shows up in `opt --help-hidden`. Otherwise in the source code for
each transformation.
(remember when I mentioned these are intended for LLVM developers and not
end-user facing?).

-- 
Mehdi




> --
>> Mehdi
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -Tao
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2018-01-07 23:16 GMT-08:00 toddy wang <wenwangtoddy at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> -mllvm <value>          Additional arguments to forward to LLVM's
>>>>> option processing
>>>>>
>>>>> This is dumped by clang. I am not sure what I am supposed to put as
>>>>> value in order to tune unrolling/inlining threshold.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As the help says, this is used to pass argument to LLVM itself. If you
>>>> remember you earlier question about setA (clang options) and setC (opt
>>>>  options), this allows to reach setC from the clang command line.
>>>> Any option that you see in the output of `opt --help` can be set from
>>>> clang using `-mllvm`. Same caveat as I mentioned before: these aren't
>>>> supposed to be end-user options.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mehdi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 2:02 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For the types of things that you are looking for, you may just want
>>>>>> to try a bunch of -mllvm options. You can tune inlining and unrolling
>>>>>> threshold like that, for example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 7, 2018 10:33 PM, "toddy wang via llvm-dev" <
>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Mehdi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now we have 5 pipelines. (In addition to the first 3, which I have
>>>>>>> described in detail above, please refer my latest reply for details)
>>>>>>> 1. clang + opt + gold
>>>>>>> 2. clang + opt + lld
>>>>>>> 3. clang + GNU ld/ gold /lld
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. clang + opt + llc + clang
>>>>>>> clang -emit-llvm -O1 -Xclang -disable-llvm-passes for c/c++ to .bc
>>>>>>> generation and minimal  front-end optimization
>>>>>>> opt for single bc file optimization
>>>>>>> llc single bc file to obj file generation and back-end optimization
>>>>>>> (no link-time optimization is possible, since llc works on 1 bc file at a
>>>>>>> time)
>>>>>>> clang again for linking all obj file to generate final executable. (although
>>>>>>> in principle there can be a link-time optimization even with all obj files,
>>>>>>> it requires a lot of work and is machine-dependent. This may also be the
>>>>>>> reason why modern compilers like LLVM/GCC/ICC, etc performs LTO not at obj
>>>>>>> level. But, obj level may yield extra benefit even LTO at intermediate
>>>>>>> level has been applied by compilers, because obj level can see more
>>>>>>> information.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> `clang -Ox` + `opt -Ox` + `llc -Ox` is too coarse-grain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5. Modify clang to align with GCC/ICC so that many tunables are
>>>>>>> exposed at clang command line. Not sure how much work is needed, but at
>>>>>>> least requires an overall understanding of compiler internals, which can be
>>>>>>> gradually figured out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe 5 is interesting, but 2 may be good enough. More
>>>>>>> experiments are needed before decision is made.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:56 AM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Toddy,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can achieve what you're looking for with a pipeline based on
>>>>>>>> `clang -Ox` + `opt -Ox` + `llc -Ox` (or lld instead of llc), but this won't
>>>>>>>> be guarantee'd to be well supported across releases of the compiler.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Otherwise, if there are some performance-releated (or not...)
>>>>>>>> command line options you think clang is missing / would benefit, I invite
>>>>>>>> you to propose adding them to cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org and submit a
>>>>>>>> patch!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Mehdi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2018-01-07 21:03 GMT-08:00 toddy wang <wenwangtoddy at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Mehdi.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For GCC, there are around 190 optimization flags exposed as
>>>>>>>>> command-line options.
>>>>>>>>> For Clang/LLVM, the number is 40, and many important optimization
>>>>>>>>> parameters are not exposed at all, such as loop unrolling factor, inline
>>>>>>>>> function size parameters.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I understand there is very different idea for whether or not
>>>>>>>>> expose many flags to end-user.
>>>>>>>>> Personally, I believe it is a reasonable to keep end-user
>>>>>>>>> controllable command-line options minimal for user-friendliness.
>>>>>>>>> However, for users who care a lot for a tiny bit performance
>>>>>>>>> improvement, like HPC community, it may be better to expose as many
>>>>>>>>> fine-grained tunables in the form of command line options as possible. Or,
>>>>>>>>> at least there should be a way to achieve this fairly easy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am curious about which way is the best for my purpose.
>>>>>>>>> Please see my latest reply for 3 possible fine-grained
>>>>>>>>> optimization pipeline.
>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to more discussions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "SetC" options are LLVM cl::opt options, they are intended for
>>>>>>>>>> LLVM developer and experimentations. If a settings is intended to be used
>>>>>>>>>> as a public API, there is usually a programmatic way of setting it in LLVM.
>>>>>>>>>> "SetA" is what clang as a C++ compiler exposes to the end-user.
>>>>>>>>>> Internally clang will (most of the time) use one or multiple LLVM APIs to
>>>>>>>>>> propagate a settings.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Mehdi
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2018-01-05 17:41 GMT-08:00 toddy wang via llvm-dev <
>>>>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Craig, thanks a lot!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm actually confused by clang optimization flags.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If I run clang -help, it will show many optimizations (denoted
>>>>>>>>>>> as set A)  and non-optimization options (denoted as set B).
>>>>>>>>>>> If I run llvm-as < /dev/null | opt -O0/1/2/3 -disable-output
>>>>>>>>>>> -debug-pass=Arguments, it also shows many optimization flags (denote as set
>>>>>>>>>>> C).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are many options in set C while not in set A, and also
>>>>>>>>>>> options in set A but not in set C.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The general question is:  what is the relationship between set A
>>>>>>>>>>> and set C, at the same optimization level O0/O1/O2/O3?
>>>>>>>>>>> Another question is: how to specify an option in set C as a
>>>>>>>>>>> clang command line option, if it is not in A?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For example, -dse is in set C but not in set A, how can I
>>>>>>>>>>> specify it as a clang option? Or simply I cannot do that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Craig Topper <
>>>>>>>>>>> craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> O0 didn't start applying optnone until r304127 in May 2017
>>>>>>>>>>>> which is after the 4.0 family was branched. So only 5.0, 6.0, and trunk
>>>>>>>>>>>> have that behavior. Commit message copied below
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Author: Mehdi Amini <joker.eph at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Date:   Mon May 29 05:38:20 2017 +0000
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     IRGen: Add optnone attribute on function during O0
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Amongst other, this will help LTO to correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> handle/honor files
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     compiled with O0, helping debugging failures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     It also seems in line with how we handle other options,
>>>>>>>>>>>> like how
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     -fnoinline adds the appropriate attribute as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28404
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ~Craig
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 4:49 PM, toddy wang <
>>>>>>>>>>>> wenwangtoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Zhaopei, thanks for the clarification.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Craig and @Michael, for clang 4.0.1,  -Xclang
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -disable-O0-optnone gives the following error message. From which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> version -disable-O0-optnone gets supported?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [twang15 at c89 temp]$ clang++ -O0 -Xclang -disable-O0-optnone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Xclang -disable-llvm-passes -c -emit-llvm -o a.bc LULESH.cc
>>>>>>>>>>>>> error: unknown argument: '-disable-O0-optnone'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [twang15 at c89 temp]$ clang++ --version
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clang version 4.0.1 (tags/RELEASE_401/final)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Craig Topper <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you pass -O0 to clang, most functions will be tagged with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an optnone function attribute that will prevent opt and llc even if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pass -O3 to opt and llc. This is the mostly likely cause for the slow down
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can disable the optnone function attribute behavior by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passing "-Xclang -disable-O0-optnone" to clang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~Craig
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 1:19 PM, toddy wang via llvm-dev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I tried the following on LULESH1.0 serial version (
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://codesign.llnl.gov/lulesh/LULESH.cc)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. clang++ -O3 LULESH.cc; ./a.out 20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Runtime: 9.487353 second
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. clang++ -O0 -Xclang -disable-llvm-passes -c -emit-llvm -o
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a.bc LULESH.cc; opt -O3 a.bc -o b.bc; llc -O3 -filetype=obj b.bc -o b.o ;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clang++ b.o -o b.out; ./b.out 20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Runtime: 24.15 seconds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. clang++ -O3 -Xclang -disable-llvm-passes -c -emit-llvm -o
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a.bc LULESH.cc; opt -O3 a.bc -o b.bc; llc -O3 -filetype=obj b.bc -o b.o ;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clang++ b.o -o b.out; ./b.out 20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Runtime: 9.53 seconds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 and 3 have almost the same performance, while 2 is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significantly worse, while I expect 1, 2 ,3 should have trivial difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this a wrong expectation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Peizhao, what did you try in your last post?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Peizhao Ou via llvm-dev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's really nice of you pointing out the -Xclang option, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes things much easier. I really appreciate your help!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peizhao
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Mehdi Amini <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 10, 2017, at 5:21 PM, Craig Topper via llvm-dev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clang -O0 does not disable all optimization passes modify
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the IR.; In fact it causes most functions to get tagged with noinline to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent inlinining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also disable lifetime instrinsics emission and TBAA,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you really need to do is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clang -O3 -c emit-llvm -o source.bc -v
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Find the -cc1 command line from that output. Execute that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> command with --disable-llvm-passes. leave the -O3 and everything else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s a bit complicated: CC1 options can be passed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through with -Xclang, for example here just adding to the regular clang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invocation ` -Xclang -disable-llvm-passes`
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> —
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mehdi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should be able to feed the output from that command to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opt/llc and get consistent results.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~Craig
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Peizhao Ou via llvm-dev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am wondering about the relationship clang, opt and llc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that this has been asked, e.g.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/40350990/relationsh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ip-between-clang-opt-llc-and-llvm-linker. Sorry for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posting a similar question again, but I still have something that hasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been resolved yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More specifically I am wondering about the following two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approaches compiling optimized executable:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. clang -O3 -c source.c -o source.o
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     clang a.o b.o c.o ... -o executable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. clang -O0 -c -emit-llvm -o source.bc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     opt -O3 source.bc -o source.bc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     llc -O3 -filetype=obj source.bc -o source.o
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     clang a.o b.o c.o ... -o executable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I took a look at the source code of the clang tool and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opt tool, they both seem to use the PassManagerBuilder::populateModulePassManager()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and PassManagerBuilder::populateFunctionPassManager()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions to add passes to their optimization pipeline; and for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backend, the clang and llc both use the addPassesToEmitFile() function to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate object code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So presumably the above two approaches to generating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> optimized executable file should do the same thing. However, I am seeing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the second approach is around 2% slower than the first approach (which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the way developers usually use) pretty consistently.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can anyone point me to the reasons why this happens? Or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even correct my wrong understanding of the relationship between these two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approaches?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PS: I used the -debug-pass=Structure option to print out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the passes, they seem the same except that the first approach has an extra
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pass called "-add-discriminator", but I don't think that's the reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peizhao
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180108/1928c19d/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list