Hi Prashanth, On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 10:22 AM Prashanth N R via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:>> Starting from May-June, we at "Compiler Tree" would start porting clang compiler to use MLIR as middle end target. If someone has already started a similar effort we would love to collaborate with them. If someone would like to work with us, we are ready to form a group and collaborate. If there are sharing opportunities from Fortran side, we would like to consider the same.\That's a rather vague statement, considering the flexibility of MLIR. Could you explain your plans in more detail, and what specifically you hope to achieve with them? Cheers, Nicolai>> >> We are in the early phase of design for "C" part of the work. From our experience with (FC+MLIR) compiler, we are estimating that we would have an early cut of the compiler working with non-trivial workload within a quarter of starting of work. >> >> Please ping me for any queries or concerns. >> >> Regards, >> -Prashanth > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev-- Lerne, wie die Welt wirklich ist, aber vergiss niemals, wie sie sein sollte.
Currently LLVM uses a low level IR for representing programs. Memory disambiguation does not happen accurately for constructs like multi-dimensional arrays. One of the ways we alleviate the same in LLVM currently is by using multiversioning of the code. By supporting a mid-level IR like MLIR we intend to keep the access indices of multidimensional array and do better disambiguation. thanks, -Prashanth On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 4:34 PM Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle at gmail.com> wrote:> Hi Prashanth, > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 10:22 AM Prashanth N R via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Starting from May-June, we at "Compiler Tree" would start porting > clang compiler to use MLIR as middle end target. If someone has already > started a similar effort we would love to collaborate with them. If someone > would like to work with us, we are ready to form a group and collaborate. > If there are sharing opportunities from Fortran side, we would like to > consider the same.\ > > That's a rather vague statement, considering the flexibility of MLIR. > Could you explain your plans in more detail, and what specifically you > hope to achieve with them? > > Cheers, > Nicolai > > > >> > >> We are in the early phase of design for "C" part of the work. From > our experience with (FC+MLIR) compiler, we are estimating that we would > have an early cut of the compiler working with non-trivial workload within > a quarter of starting of work. > >> > >> Please ping me for any queries or concerns. > >> > >> Regards, > >> -Prashanth > > > > _______________________________________________ > > LLVM Developers mailing list > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > > > -- > Lerne, wie die Welt wirklich ist, > aber vergiss niemals, wie sie sein sollte. >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200217/0c54d7ea/attachment.html>
Fred Chow is a well known name in compiler community. He was the architect of Open64 compiler. His comment on LLVM IR from open64 mailing list can be seen at : https://sourceforge.net/p/open64/mailman/message/23829398/ " From their name, LLVM roughly corresponds to Low WHIRL. I wonder how LLVM tackles the compilation problems Open64 has tackled. People with exposure to LLVM are welcome to chime in." On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:43 PM Prashanth N R <prashanth.nr at gmail.com> wrote:> Currently LLVM uses a low level IR for representing programs. Memory > disambiguation does not happen accurately for constructs like > multi-dimensional arrays. One of the ways we alleviate the same in LLVM > currently is by using multiversioning of the code. By supporting a > mid-level IR like MLIR we intend to keep the access indices of > multidimensional array and do better disambiguation. > > thanks, > -Prashanth > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 4:34 PM Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Prashanth, >> >> On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 10:22 AM Prashanth N R via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Starting from May-June, we at "Compiler Tree" would start porting >> clang compiler to use MLIR as middle end target. If someone has already >> started a similar effort we would love to collaborate with them. If someone >> would like to work with us, we are ready to form a group and collaborate. >> If there are sharing opportunities from Fortran side, we would like to >> consider the same.\ >> >> That's a rather vague statement, considering the flexibility of MLIR. >> Could you explain your plans in more detail, and what specifically you >> hope to achieve with them? >> >> Cheers, >> Nicolai >> >> >> >> >> >> We are in the early phase of design for "C" part of the work. From >> our experience with (FC+MLIR) compiler, we are estimating that we would >> have an early cut of the compiler working with non-trivial workload within >> a quarter of starting of work. >> >> >> >> Please ping me for any queries or concerns. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> -Prashanth >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > LLVM Developers mailing list >> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >> >> >> -- >> Lerne, wie die Welt wirklich ist, >> aber vergiss niemals, wie sie sein sollte. >> >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200217/dc696358/attachment.html>