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

Craig Topper via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Jan 8 23:00:27 PST 2018 

Yes that is what he meant. "-dce, -adce, etc" are command line options
consumed by tools/opt/opt.cpp to give to the PassManagerBuilder that it
creates.  The parsing of those options doesn't exist in any of the llvm
library code that is linked into clang. Clang has its own code for
populating a PassManagerBuilder in tools/clang/lib/CodeGen/BackendUtil.cpp

~Craig

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:55 PM, toddy wang via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Mehdi,
>
> I found -unroll-max-count can be passed w/ -mllvm.
> -dce, -adce, etc,  are also dumped by 'opt --help-hidden'. However, they
> cannot be passed w/ -mllvm.
> Is this what "You can't schedule passes this way, only set parameters
> like -unroll-threshold=<uint> etc." means?
>
> [twang15 at c89 temp]$ clang++ -mllvm -unroll-max-count=4 -mllvm -dce
> -save-temps  LULESH.cc
> clang (LLVM option parsing): Unknown command line argument '-dce'.  Try:
> 'clang (LLVM option parsing) -help'
> clang (LLVM option parsing): Did you mean '-mv4'?
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:48 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180108/78efc3f7/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list