emmettneyman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/tools/clang-fuzzer/handle-llvm/handle_llvm.cpp:89 + Builder.Inliner = createFunctionInliningPass(OptLevel, SizeLevel, false); + Builder.LoopVectorize = true; + Builder.populateFunctionPassManager(FPM); ---------------- morehouse wrote: > If we do this, do we need to explicitly add the vectorizer pass below? No we don't. I've deleted the line below. ================ Comment at: clang/tools/clang-fuzzer/handle-llvm/handle_llvm.cpp:110 + TargetLibraryInfoImpl TLII(ModuleTriple); + Passes.add(new TargetLibraryInfoWrapperPass(TLII)); + Passes.add(createTargetTransformInfoWrapperPass(TargetIRAnalysis())); ---------------- morehouse wrote: > Can simplify to `Passes.add(new > TargetLibraryInfoWrapperPass(M->getTargetTriple))`. Contrary to the function's name, `getTargetTriple()` actually returns a `string`, not a `Triple`. But I changed it to `new TargetLibraryInfoWrapperPass(ModuleTriple)` and deleted line 109. ================ Comment at: clang/tools/clang-fuzzer/handle-llvm/handle_llvm.cpp:115 + make_unique<legacy::FunctionPassManager>(M.get()); + FPasses->add(createTargetTransformInfoWrapperPass(TargetIRAnalysis())); + ---------------- morehouse wrote: > morehouse wrote: > > Why do we add a `TargetTransformInfoWrapperPass` to both `Passes` and > > `FPasses`? > Do we need both `Passes` and `FPasses`? I think because we're just adding a loop vectorize pass, we don't need `FPasses`. The loop vectorize pass lives within the regular `ModulePassManager`, not the `FunctionPassManager`. I decided to put it in the code so, in the future, it would be easier to add different kinds of passes to the fuzz target. Should I remove it? ================ Comment at: clang/tools/clang-fuzzer/handle-llvm/handle_llvm.cpp:159 + std::unique_ptr<RTDyldMemoryManager>(RTDyldMM)); + builder.setOptLevel(OLvl); + builder.setTargetOptions(InitTargetOptionsFromCodeGenFlags()); ---------------- morehouse wrote: > If the JIT does optimization already, do we need to call `OptLLVM` at all? > Will the vectorizer kick in without `OptLLVM`? I'll look into this more. I couldn't find an answer quickly. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D49526 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
