vivek pandya via llvm-dev
2016-Jun-28 17:43 UTC
[llvm-dev] [IPRA] Do we required more aggressive shrink-wrapping optimization?
Hello Quentin, I see your work on shrink-wrapping optimization at http://reviews.llvm.org/rL236507 IPRA has benefited shrink-wrapping optimization ( I have noticed that on sqlite3 test-case) so I did read Fred Chow's paper and compare that approach with yours I did not understand much of your work :-( in comparison to original paper but I feel that current approach is not generating same results as data flow analysis based approach. Also I do not understand one of your comment on review :> > 1. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At > some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, > > Do you here meant to get more effective results as original paper? WithIPRA should we go for more aggressive version or the current version is as capable as original paper ? Sincerely, Vivek -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160628/06591eba/attachment.html>
C Bergström via llvm-dev
2016-Jun-28 17:48 UTC
[llvm-dev] [IPRA] Do we required more aggressive shrink-wrapping optimization?
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 1:43 AM, vivek pandya via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Hello Quentin, > > I see your work on shrink-wrapping optimization at > http://reviews.llvm.org/rL236507 > IPRA has benefited shrink-wrapping optimization ( I have noticed that on > sqlite3 test-case) so I did read Fred Chow's paper and compare that > approach with yours I did not understand much of your work :-( in > comparison to original paper but I feel that current approach is not > generating same results as data flow analysis based approach. Also I do not > understand one of your comment on review : > >> >> 1. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. >> At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, >> >> Do you here meant to get more effective results as original paper? With > IPRA should we go for more aggressive version or the current version is as > capable as original paper ? >I can't make any promises, but Fred is a friend of mine - Please email me offlist if you need an extra hand with this and think his input may be of value. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160629/41a6550a/attachment.html>
Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev
2016-Jun-28 19:06 UTC
[llvm-dev] [IPRA] Do we required more aggressive shrink-wrapping optimization?
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 1:48 PM, C Bergström via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 1:43 AM, vivek pandya via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > Hello Quentin, > > I see your work on shrink-wrapping optimization at http://reviews.llvm.org/rL236507 <http://reviews.llvm.org/rL236507> > IPRA has benefited shrink-wrapping optimization ( I have noticed that on sqlite3 test-case) so I did read Fred Chow's paper and compare that approach with yours I did not understand much of your work :-( in comparison to original paper but I feel that current approach is not generating same results as data flow analysis based approach. Also I do not understand one of your comment on review : > Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, > Do you here meant to get more effective results as original paper? With IPRA should we go for more aggressive version or the current version is as capable as original paper ? > > I can't make any promises, but Fred is a friend of mine - Please email me offlist if you need an extra hand with this and think his input may be of value.Could he send his input on the list instead of having to side-channel? I’m sure it can be interesting for everyone :) Thanks, — Mehdi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160628/64999049/attachment.html>
Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev
2016-Jul-01 23:22 UTC
[llvm-dev] [IPRA] Do we required more aggressive shrink-wrapping optimization?
Hi Vivek,> On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:43 AM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Quentin, > > I see your work on shrink-wrapping optimization at http://reviews.llvm.org/rL236507 <http://reviews.llvm.org/rL236507> > IPRA has benefited shrink-wrapping optimization ( I have noticed that on sqlite3 test-case) so I did read Fred Chow's paper and compare that approach with yours I did not understand much of your work :-( in comparison to original paper but I feel that current approach is not generating same results as data flow analysis based approach.That’s not surprising that you do not get the implementation in comparison of the original paper, the goal is the same but the approaches are completely different. Fred’s approach is data flow based, that one is dominance based.> Also I do not understand one of your comment on review : > Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, > Do you here meant to get more effective results as original paper?No, I mean to improve the current approach, we would need to support several save and restore insertion points. The original paper already supports that, but so far, we did not find compelling reason to add this (complex) support.> With IPRA should we go for more aggressive version or the current version is as capable as original paper ?The current version is not as capable as the original paper in terms of the granularity we have for the placement of save and restore points, but it is much faster. Anyhow, shrink-wrapping and the scope of the current IPRA are orthogonal. Put differently, improving our shrink-wrapping implementation is a different topic. Cheers, -Quentin> > Sincerely, > Vivek-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160701/713cbebb/attachment.html>
Possibly Parallel Threads
- [IPRA] Do we required more aggressive shrink-wrapping optimization?
- Tail call optimization is getting affected due to local function related optimization with IPRA
- [GSoC 2016] [Weekly Status] Interprocedural Register Allocation
- Tail call optimization is getting affected due to local function related optimization with IPRA
- Tail call optimization is getting affected due to local function related optimization with IPRA