llvm dev - Nov 2011 - [LLVMdev] How to make Polly ignore some non-affine memory accesses

On 11/14/2011 02:45 PM, Marcello Maggioni wrote:
> 2011/11/14 Tobias Grosser<tobias at grosser.es>:
>> On 11/14/2011 01:24 AM, Marcello Maggioni wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Tobias.
>>>
>>> I worked on enabling Polly accepting non affine memory accesses and
I
>>> produced a patch.
>>
>> Great.
>>
>>> I saw that there were a lot of updates in Polly recently, so I had
to
>>> redo a lot of the work I did and that slowed me quite a bit.
>>
>> Ups, sorry! However, I believe without these changes detecting
non-affine
>> memory access functions would have been a lot more complicated.
>
> Indeed! The patch almost shrinked to half the code it was before those
> changes! Great work.
Thanks. (You motivated me to fix this, when you asked about non-affine 
access functions)
>> this should be
>>     } else {
>>
>>> +    Type = MayWrite;
>>
>> You are right, we should use may-accesses here. But why always setting
the
>> type to may-write? A read should remain a read (as there is no
difference
>> between read and may-read).
>
> You are right, in the patch for the old version that was handled
> correctly, I don't know how this reverted back to this way in the
> patch for the new version , I'll get it fixed.
Wonderful. Very cool that you realized I added MayWrite exactly for this 
case.
>>> +         Functions.push_back(std::make_pair(IRAccess(Type,
>>> +
>>>   BasePointer->getValue(),
>>> +                                                  AccessFunction,
Size,
>>> false),
>>> +&Inst));
>>> +      }
>>> +    }
>>>     }
>>>
>>>     if (Functions.empty())
>
> Yeah, there are quite a few stylistic problems actually, my bad!! I'll
> get all the style problems fixed as fast as possible! Sorry for that.
Alright. I failed on this myself, which is why Polly is not everywhere 
perfect. Still, we should try to follow the LLVM style guide.

BTW, if you find any problems in patches I commit or in Polly itself or 
if your find anything that you don't understand, please go ahead and let 
me know. Even if it is correct and you just did not get it, I think this 
is a documentation bug and should be fixed.
>> Besides the comments above, the patch looks great. It is a nice
improvement
>> to Polly. Can you repost it after the comments are addressed? Also
could you
>> include a minimal test case in the patch, that verifies this features
is
>> working correctly.
>
> Thank you, for your time Tobias explaining all the issues with the
> patch so throughly and in a clear manner .
You did a good job working on the patch. It is great if people go ahead, 
work for themselves and send in a patch that works. Even better if the 
right approach was taken and just some smaller remarks are necessary.
> Should I make a specific subdirectory for the test case?
No. I think you can put one test case in test/ScopInfo that runs 
-polly-scops -analyze and one in test/CodeGeneration that ensures that 
the correct code is generated.
> >> Thanks
>> Tobi
>>
>> P.S.: Please post patches to the mailing lists.
> What do you mean with post patches to the mailing lists? Do you mean
> in llvm-dev or llvm-commit?
> The previous patch has been posted on llvm-dev, was that wrong?
Normally patches should either be posted on llvm-commit or 
polly-dev at googlegroups.com.

In this case it seems you sent two separate emails, one to me and 
another to Sebastian and llvmdev. I just saw the one to me and did not 
see that another one was sent to llvmdev. Just send next time one email 
with all of us copied.

Cheers
Tobi

2011/11/14 Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es>:
> On 11/14/2011 02:45 PM, Marcello Maggioni wrote:
>>
>> 2011/11/14 Tobias Grosser<tobias at grosser.es>:
>>>
>>> On 11/14/2011 01:24 AM, Marcello Maggioni wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Tobias.
>>>>
>>>> I worked on enabling Polly accepting non affine memory accesses
and I
>>>> produced a patch.
>>>
>>> Great.
>>>
>>>> I saw that there were a lot of updates in Polly recently, so I
had to
>>>> redo a lot of the work I did and that slowed me quite a bit.
>>>
>>> Ups, sorry! However, I believe without these changes detecting
non-affine
>>> memory access functions would have been a lot more complicated.
>>
>> Indeed! The patch almost shrinked to half the code it was before those
>> changes! Great work.
>
> Thanks. (You motivated me to fix this, when you asked about non-affine
> access functions)
>
>>> this should be
>>>    } else {
>>>
>>>> +    Type = MayWrite;
>>>
>>> You are right, we should use may-accesses here. But why always
setting
>>> the
>>> type to may-write? A read should remain a read (as there is no
difference
>>> between read and may-read).
>>
>> You are right, in the patch for the old version that was handled
>> correctly, I don't know how this reverted back to this way in the
>> patch for the new version , I'll get it fixed.
>
> Wonderful. Very cool that you realized I added MayWrite exactly for this
> case.
>
>>>> +         Functions.push_back(std::make_pair(IRAccess(Type,
>>>> +
>>>>  BasePointer->getValue(),
>>>> +                                                
 AccessFunction, Size,
>>>> false),
>>>> +&Inst));
>>>> +      }
>>>> +    }
>>>>    }
>>>>
>>>>    if (Functions.empty())
>>
>> Yeah, there are quite a few stylistic problems actually, my bad!!
I'll
>> get all the style problems fixed as fast as possible! Sorry for that.
>
> Alright. I failed on this myself, which is why Polly is not everywhere
> perfect. Still, we should try to follow the LLVM style guide.
>
> BTW, if you find any problems in patches I commit or in Polly itself or if
> your find anything that you don't understand, please go ahead and let
me
> know. Even if it is correct and you just did not get it, I think this is a
> documentation bug and should be fixed.
>
>>> Besides the comments above, the patch looks great. It is a nice
>>> improvement
>>> to Polly. Can you repost it after the comments are addressed? Also
could
>>> you
>>> include a minimal test case in the patch, that verifies this
features is
>>> working correctly.
>>
>> Thank you, for your time Tobias explaining all the issues with the
>> patch so throughly and in a clear manner .
>
> You did a good job working on the patch. It is great if people go ahead,
> work for themselves and send in a patch that works. Even better if the
right
> approach was taken and just some smaller remarks are necessary.
>
>> Should I make a specific subdirectory for the test case?
>
> No. I think you can put one test case in test/ScopInfo that runs
> -polly-scops -analyze and one in test/CodeGeneration that ensures that the
> correct code is generated.
>
>> >> Thanks
>>>
>>> Tobi
>>>
>>> P.S.: Please post patches to the mailing lists.
>
>> What do you mean with post patches to the mailing lists? Do you mean
>> in llvm-dev or llvm-commit?
>> The previous patch has been posted on llvm-dev, was that wrong?
>
> Normally patches should either be posted on llvm-commit or
> polly-dev at googlegroups.com.
>
> In this case it seems you sent two separate emails, one to me and another
to
> Sebastian and llvmdev. I just saw the one to me and did not see that
another
> one was sent to llvmdev. Just send next time one email with all of us
> copied.
>
> Cheers
> Tobi
>
Hi, I implemented the changes you required, I hope this I solved all
the stylistic issues now and I also added the flag you required.

I added a test case to the patch , but I'm not very expert with the
llvm testing framework and I had difficulties testing running the
test. I tried running the polly test suite compiling polly with CMAKE,
but I have linking problems with CMAKE while linking the
LLVMPolly.dylib library and can't figure out why (lots of linker
errors). The autotools build works perfectly but polly-tests doesn't
work with autotools.
I tried running directly the tests with lit , but it gives me

lit.py: lit.cfg:74: fatal: No site specific configuration available!

Do you know how can I run the tests manually to check if they are
correct? I tried searching around , but couldn't find a reliable way
to check if the test works.

The preliminary patch is attached to the mail.

Marcello
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: accept_affine3.diff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 10584 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111115/d1d4444b/attachment.obj>

2011/11/15 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at
gmail.com>:
> 2011/11/14 Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es>:
>> On 11/14/2011 02:45 PM, Marcello Maggioni wrote:
>>>
>>> 2011/11/14 Tobias Grosser<tobias at grosser.es>:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/14/2011 01:24 AM, Marcello Maggioni wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Tobias.
>>>>>
>>>>> I worked on enabling Polly accepting non affine memory
accesses and I
>>>>> produced a patch.
>>>>
>>>> Great.
>>>>
>>>>> I saw that there were a lot of updates in Polly recently,
so I had to
>>>>> redo a lot of the work I did and that slowed me quite a
bit.
>>>>
>>>> Ups, sorry! However, I believe without these changes detecting
non-affine
>>>> memory access functions would have been a lot more complicated.
>>>
>>> Indeed! The patch almost shrinked to half the code it was before
those
>>> changes! Great work.
>>
>> Thanks. (You motivated me to fix this, when you asked about non-affine
>> access functions)
>>
>>>> this should be
>>>>    } else {
>>>>
>>>>> +    Type = MayWrite;
>>>>
>>>> You are right, we should use may-accesses here. But why always
setting
>>>> the
>>>> type to may-write? A read should remain a read (as there is no
difference
>>>> between read and may-read).
>>>
>>> You are right, in the patch for the old version that was handled
>>> correctly, I don't know how this reverted back to this way in
the
>>> patch for the new version , I'll get it fixed.
>>
>> Wonderful. Very cool that you realized I added MayWrite exactly for
this
>> case.
>>
>>>>> +         Functions.push_back(std::make_pair(IRAccess(Type,
>>>>> +
>>>>>  BasePointer->getValue(),
>>>>> +                                                
 AccessFunction, Size,
>>>>> false),
>>>>> +&Inst));
>>>>> +      }
>>>>> +    }
>>>>>    }
>>>>>
>>>>>    if (Functions.empty())
>>>
>>> Yeah, there are quite a few stylistic problems actually, my bad!!
I'll
>>> get all the style problems fixed as fast as possible! Sorry for
that.
>>
>> Alright. I failed on this myself, which is why Polly is not everywhere
>> perfect. Still, we should try to follow the LLVM style guide.
>>
>> BTW, if you find any problems in patches I commit or in Polly itself or
if
>> your find anything that you don't understand, please go ahead and
let me
>> know. Even if it is correct and you just did not get it, I think this
is a
>> documentation bug and should be fixed.
>>
>>>> Besides the comments above, the patch looks great. It is a nice
>>>> improvement
>>>> to Polly. Can you repost it after the comments are addressed?
Also could
>>>> you
>>>> include a minimal test case in the patch, that verifies this
features is
>>>> working correctly.
>>>
>>> Thank you, for your time Tobias explaining all the issues with the
>>> patch so throughly and in a clear manner .
>>
>> You did a good job working on the patch. It is great if people go
ahead,
>> work for themselves and send in a patch that works. Even better if the
right
>> approach was taken and just some smaller remarks are necessary.
>>
>>> Should I make a specific subdirectory for the test case?
>>
>> No. I think you can put one test case in test/ScopInfo that runs
>> -polly-scops -analyze and one in test/CodeGeneration that ensures that
the
>> correct code is generated.
>>
>>> >> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Tobi
>>>>
>>>> P.S.: Please post patches to the mailing lists.
>>
>>> What do you mean with post patches to the mailing lists? Do you
mean
>>> in llvm-dev or llvm-commit?
>>> The previous patch has been posted on llvm-dev, was that wrong?
>>
>> Normally patches should either be posted on llvm-commit or
>> polly-dev at googlegroups.com.
>>
>> In this case it seems you sent two separate emails, one to me and
another to
>> Sebastian and llvmdev. I just saw the one to me and did not see that
another
>> one was sent to llvmdev. Just send next time one email with all of us
>> copied.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Tobi
>>
>
> Hi, I implemented the changes you required, I hope this I solved all
> the stylistic issues now and I also added the flag you required.
>
> I added a test case to the patch , but I'm not very expert with the
> llvm testing framework and I had difficulties testing running the
> test. I tried running the polly test suite compiling polly with CMAKE,
> but I have linking problems with CMAKE while linking the
> LLVMPolly.dylib library and can't figure out why (lots of linker
> errors). The autotools build works perfectly but polly-tests doesn't
> work with autotools.
> I tried running directly the tests with lit , but it gives me
>
> lit.py: lit.cfg:74: fatal: No site specific configuration available!
>
> Do you know how can I run the tests manually to check if they are
> correct? I tried searching around , but couldn't find a reliable way
> to check if the test works.
>
> The preliminary patch is attached to the mail.
>
> Marcello
>
Ok , this is what I believe is the final patch that adds the
non-affine accept functionality to Polly, this should have no issues.

I added three tests, two in ScopInfo (two simple tests, one expected
fail and one success based on the same source) and one in CodeGen that
verifies that the code is generated.

The patch is attached.

The patch to correct the test runs on OSX will be posted shortly after
this one (I preferred to separate the two so that a problem with
either one of the two wouldn't give problems to the other and also to
give more clarity on what patch solves what problem).

Marcello
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: accept_affine_final.diff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 8004 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111118/e9319a42/attachment.obj>