Whitney T Tsang via llvm-dev
2020-Mar-27 22:10 UTC
[llvm-dev] [GSoC] Prospective student for Unify ways to move code or check if code is safe to be moved
Hi Rithik,
CodeMoverUtils is not aimed for only loop transformations, it can be used
by any transformation which want to move code or check if code is safe to
be moved.
It can currently do both hoist and sink but require control flow equivalent
between the original location and the intended to be moved location.
I would like to keep the API decoupled from loop, so other transformation
can use it.
In this project we want to limit the scope to loop transformations due to
the time constraint, but we should keep in mind that it should be usable
for any kind of transformations.
My expectations for the proposal should contains
1. the problem we want to solve
2. expected end result
- how many percentage of the loop transformations do you think can be
changed to use the unified API at the end of the project?
3. roadmap + timeline
a. identified all loop transformations which require code motion
b. identified all existing code mover utilities
c. understand the difference (some maybe more conservative, but does
it really need to be)
d. improve CodeMoverUtils to accommodate different users
e. change existing loop transformations to use the improved
CodeMoverUtils (should do with (d) at the same time).
Note: finding transformations that use code motion is part of the project,
so no need to include every opportunity in the proposal.
Hope this help.
Regards,
Whitney Tsang
From: RITHIK SHARMA <rithiksh02 at gmail.com>
To: whitneyt at ca.ibm.com
Cc: etiotto at gmail.com, Stefanos Baziotis
<stefanos.baziotis at gmail.com>, llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, bmahjour at ca.ibm.com
Date: 2020/03/27 03:08 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [llvm-dev] [GSoC] Prospective student for Unify
ways to move code or check if code is safe to be moved
Hello Whitney,
I spent some good time going through the exact implementation of a few loop
transformation passes in llvm and for others, I tried to quickly get an
idea of what is going inside them with respect to the implementation in
llvm.
I also went through the CodeMoverUtils [1], I really appreciate the effort
of keeping it generic and decoupled from loop though being derived from
loop and aimed to be used for loop transformation. I also analyzed Loop
Fuse pass [2] as a reference as it already uses CodeMoverUtils which helped
me to concrete my understanding of the vision behind the unification of
code motion checks.
LICM [3] does hoisting [4] as well as sinking [5]. I thought about
extending the already available isSafeToMoveBefore [6] for hoisting the
code from loop body to the pre-header. In my opinion, hosting and sinking
are the basic code motions, exposing them in a robust and flexible way will
also help other transformations (maybe other non-loop transformations).
I also saw that Loop Sink pass [7] uses the same checks [8] from LICM and
also found another code hoisting opportunity in Loop Rotation pass where we
once hoist to the pre-header [9]. I also analyzed passes like Loop Unswitch
[10] in the hope for some code motion opportunities but it seems the passes
which are expected to run after LICM are void of them (may not be true for
all). I limited myself to the loop passes in Transform/Scalar and I'm
planning to take a look into other loop passes as well.
Having said that, my concern right now is the proposal whose deadline is
approaching in 4 days, I would like to get a small feedback before the
deadline. I am aiming to prepare a draft by Monday morning (PST) so then I
may have a short window to incorporate the feedback. I also have two
coursework assignment deadlines end of this week which is also demanding
some of my effort other than attending the lectures.
I'll be glad to hear about your expectations for the proposal. I'm
planning
to somehow meet them and will also continue to look into loop passes for
more code motion checks after the proposal deadline. Does this look good to
you? In my proposal can I focus on the findings that I'm able to do before
the deadline and keep some buffer for things that I may find later as
identifying all the existing ways for code motion in loop transformations
is a big portion of the proposed project.
1.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/CodeMoverUtils.cpp
2.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopFuse.cpp
3.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LICM.cpp
4.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LICM.cpp#L353
5.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LICM.cpp#L348
6.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/CodeMoverUtils.cpp#L299
7.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopSink.cpp
8.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopSink.cpp#L303
9.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopRotationUtils.cpp#L403
10.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopUnswitch.cpp
Best,
Rithik
On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 23:30, Stefanos Baziotis <
stefanos.baziotis at gmail.com> wrote:
Np, good luck! :)
- Stefanos
Στις Τρί, 24 Μαρ 2020 στις 8:55 μ.μ., ο/η RITHIK SHARMA <
rithiksh02 at gmail.com> έγραψε:
Many thanks, Stefanos! I really appreciate your help :) I heard from
Whitney.
Best,
Rithik
On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 23:08, Stefanos Baziotis <
stefanos.baziotis at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Rithik,
I CC'd the 2 other mentors and hopefully you'll get answer. Sorry,
but
I don't know of any other way to help. :/
You may also try to contact them privately.
Best,
Stefanos
Στις Τρί, 24 Μαρ 2020 στις 7:35 μ.μ., ο/η RITHIK SHARMA via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> έγραψε:
Ping!
I'm bit concern about the approaching deadline next week, some
pointers will be really appreciated and will be very helpful to me.
Best regards,
Rithik Sharma
On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 at 01:24, RITHIK SHARMA <rithiksh02 at
gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello,
I am an undergrad from India. This summer I'm interested in working
on unifying the code motion checks as a GSoC intern with LLVM. I
started reading about classical data flow analysis since few
months, I see this as a great opportunity to start contributing to
LLVM. The idea of unifying all the code motion checks into one
place seems very rational and interesting to me. As in the project
description LICM was mentioned, I have a basic idea about it and I
spent some time to go through its implementation in LLVM. It makes
a lot of sense to me to keep all code motion checks at one place,
say an analysis pass, I also looked into GVN hoist & sink passes as
they also have some code motion logic. I'll start drafting the
proposal after your initial feedback/suggestions. I'm really very
excited to work on this.
Best Regards,
Rithik Sharma
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
https://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/20200327/b990da1f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200327/b990da1f/attachment.gif>
RITHIK SHARMA via llvm-dev
2020-Mar-30 20:48 UTC
[llvm-dev] [GSoC] Prospective student for Unify ways to move code or check if code is safe to be moved
Thanks Whitney, It was really very helpful! I've drafted a proposal [1] with my best efforts, I hope it does justice to your expectations. Looking forward to any feedback or suggestions. 1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zrCCw1LSe2GktYVxywkRSVvgzcPrQD-rch0_6GkK3lc/edit?usp=sharing Many thanks, Rithik On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 at 03:40, Whitney T Tsang <whitneyt at ca.ibm.com> wrote:> Hi Rithik, > > CodeMoverUtils is not aimed for only loop transformations, it can be used > by any transformation which want to move code or check if code is safe to > be moved. > It can currently do both hoist and sink but require control flow > equivalent between the original location and the intended to be moved > location. > I would like to keep the API decoupled from loop, so other transformation > can use it. > In this project we want to limit the scope to loop transformations due to > the time constraint, but we should keep in mind that it should be usable > for any kind of transformations. > > My expectations for the proposal should contains > 1. the problem we want to solve > 2. expected end result > - how many percentage of the loop transformations do you think can be > changed to use the unified API at the end of the project? > 3. roadmap + timeline > a. identified all loop transformations which require code motion > b. identified all existing code mover utilities > c. understand the difference (some maybe more conservative, but does it > really need to be) > d. improve CodeMoverUtils to accommodate different users > e. change existing loop transformations to use the improved CodeMoverUtils > (should do with (d) at the same time). > > Note: finding transformations that use code motion is part of the project, > so no need to include every opportunity in the proposal. > > Hope this help. > > Regards, > Whitney Tsang > > [image: Inactive hide details for RITHIK SHARMA ---2020/03/27 03:08:47 > PM---Hello Whitney, I spent some good time going through the exa]RITHIK > SHARMA ---2020/03/27 03:08:47 PM---Hello Whitney, I spent some good time > going through the exact implementation of a few loop > > From: RITHIK SHARMA <rithiksh02 at gmail.com> > To: whitneyt at ca.ibm.com > Cc: etiotto at gmail.com, Stefanos Baziotis <stefanos.baziotis at gmail.com>, > llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, bmahjour at ca.ibm.com > Date: 2020/03/27 03:08 PM > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [llvm-dev] [GSoC] Prospective student for Unify > ways to move code or check if code is safe to be moved > ------------------------------ > > > > Hello Whitney, > > I spent some good time going through the exact implementation of a few > loop transformation passes in llvm and for others, I tried to quickly get > an idea of what is going inside them with respect to the implementation in > llvm. > > I also went through the CodeMoverUtils [1], I really appreciate the effort > of keeping it generic and decoupled from loop though being derived from > loop and aimed to be used for loop transformation. I also analyzed Loop > Fuse pass [2] as a reference as it already uses CodeMoverUtils which helped > me to concrete my understanding of the vision behind the unification of > code motion checks. > > LICM [3] does hoisting [4] as well as sinking [5]. I thought about > extending the already available isSafeToMoveBefore [6] for hoisting the > code from loop body to the pre-header. In my opinion, hosting and sinking > are the basic code motions, exposing them in a robust and flexible way will > also help other transformations (maybe other non-loop transformations). > > I also saw that Loop Sink pass [7] uses the same checks [8] from LICM and > also found another code hoisting opportunity in Loop Rotation pass where we > once hoist to the pre-header [9]. I also analyzed passes like Loop Unswitch > [10] in the hope for some code motion opportunities but it seems the passes > which are expected to run after LICM are void of them (may not be true for > all). I limited myself to the loop passes in Transform/Scalar and I'm > planning to take a look into other loop passes as well. > > Having said that, my concern right now is the proposal whose deadline is > approaching in 4 days, I would like to get a small feedback before the > deadline. I am aiming to prepare a draft by Monday morning (PST) so then I > may have a short window to incorporate the feedback. I also have two > coursework assignment deadlines end of this week which is also demanding > some of my effort other than attending the lectures. > > I'll be glad to hear about your expectations for the proposal. I'm > planning to somehow meet them and will also continue to look into loop > passes for more code motion checks after the proposal deadline. Does this > look good to you? In my proposal can I focus on the findings that I'm able > to do before the deadline and keep some buffer for things that I may find > later as identifying all the existing ways for code motion in loop > transformations is a big portion of the proposed project. > > 1. > *https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/CodeMoverUtils.cpp* > <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/CodeMoverUtils.cpp> > 2. > *https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopFuse.cpp* > <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopFuse.cpp> > 3. > *https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LICM.cpp* > <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LICM.cpp> > 4. > *https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LICM.cpp#L353* > <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LICM.cpp#L353> > 5. > *https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LICM.cpp#L348* > <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LICM.cpp#L348> > 6. > *https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/CodeMoverUtils.cpp#L299* > <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/CodeMoverUtils.cpp#L299> > 7. > *https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopSink.cpp* > <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopSink.cpp> > 8. > *https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopSink.cpp#L303* > <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopSink.cpp#L303> > 9. > *https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopRotationUtils.cpp#L403* > <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopRotationUtils.cpp#L403> > 10. > *https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopUnswitch.cpp* > <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopUnswitch.cpp> > > Best, > Rithik > > > > On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 23:30, Stefanos Baziotis < > *stefanos.baziotis at gmail.com* <stefanos.baziotis at gmail.com>> wrote: > > Np, good luck! :) > > - Stefanos > > Στις Τρί, 24 Μαρ 2020 στις 8:55 μ.μ., ο/η RITHIK SHARMA < > *rithiksh02 at gmail.com* <rithiksh02 at gmail.com>> έγραψε: > Many thanks, Stefanos! I really appreciate your help :) I heard from > Whitney. > > Best, > Rithik > > On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 23:08, Stefanos Baziotis < > *stefanos.baziotis at gmail.com* <stefanos.baziotis at gmail.com>> wrote: > Hi Rithik, > > I CC'd the 2 other mentors and hopefully you'll get answer. Sorry, > but I don't know of any other way to help. :/ > You may also try to contact them privately. > > Best, > Stefanos > > > Στις Τρί, 24 Μαρ 2020 στις 7:35 μ.μ., ο/η RITHIK SHARMA via > llvm-dev <*llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org* <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> > έγραψε: > Ping! > I'm bit concern about the approaching deadline next week, some > pointers will be really appreciated and will be very helpful to me. > > Best regards, > Rithik Sharma > > On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 at 01:24, RITHIK SHARMA <*rithiksh02 at gmail.com* > <rithiksh02 at gmail.com>> wrote: > Hello, > > I am an undergrad from India. This summer I'm interested in > working on unifying the code motion checks as a GSoC intern with LLVM. I > started reading about classical data flow analysis since few months, I see > this as a great opportunity to start contributing to LLVM. The idea of > unifying all the code motion checks into one place seems very rational and > interesting to me. As in the project description LICM was mentioned, I have > a basic idea about it and I spent some time to go through its > implementation in LLVM. It makes a lot of sense to me to keep all code > motion checks at one place, say an analysis pass, I also looked into GVN > hoist & sink passes as they also have some code motion logic. I'll start > drafting the proposal after your initial feedback/suggestions. I'm really > very excited to work on this. > > Best Regards, > Rithik Sharma > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > *llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org* <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev* > <https://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/20200331/dc16b5ad/attachment-0001.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graycol.gif Type: image/gif Size: 105 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200331/dc16b5ad/attachment-0001.gif>
Whitney T Tsang via llvm-dev
2020-Mar-31 00:36 UTC
[llvm-dev] [GSoC] Prospective student for Unify ways to move code or check if code is safe to be moved
Thanks Rithik, your proposal meet my expectations.
Good luck.
Whitney Tsang
From: RITHIK SHARMA <rithiksh02 at gmail.com>
To: Whitney T Tsang <whitneyt at ca.ibm.com>
Cc: bmahjour at ca.ibm.com, etiotto at gmail.com, llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, Stefanos Baziotis
<stefanos.baziotis at gmail.com>
Date: 2020/03/30 04:49 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [llvm-dev] [GSoC] Prospective student for Unify
ways to move code or check if code is safe to be moved
Thanks Whitney,
It was really very helpful! I've drafted a proposal [1] with my best
efforts, I hope it does justice to your expectations. Looking forward to
any feedback or suggestions.
1.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zrCCw1LSe2GktYVxywkRSVvgzcPrQD-rch0_6GkK3lc/edit?usp=sharing
Many thanks,
Rithik
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 at 03:40, Whitney T Tsang <whitneyt at ca.ibm.com>
wrote:
Hi Rithik,
CodeMoverUtils is not aimed for only loop transformations, it can be used
by any transformation which want to move code or check if code is safe to
be moved.
It can currently do both hoist and sink but require control flow
equivalent between the original location and the intended to be moved
location.
I would like to keep the API decoupled from loop, so other transformation
can use it.
In this project we want to limit the scope to loop transformations due to
the time constraint, but we should keep in mind that it should be usable
for any kind of transformations.
My expectations for the proposal should contains
1. the problem we want to solve
2. expected end result
- how many percentage of the loop transformations do you think can be
changed to use the unified API at the end of the project?
3. roadmap + timeline
a. identified all loop transformations which require code motion
b. identified all existing code mover utilities
c. understand the difference (some maybe more conservative, but does it
really need to be)
d. improve CodeMoverUtils to accommodate different users
e. change existing loop transformations to use the improved
CodeMoverUtils (should do with (d) at the same time).
Note: finding transformations that use code motion is part of the
project, so no need to include every opportunity in the proposal.
Hope this help.
Regards,
Whitney Tsang
Inactive hide details for RITHIK SHARMA ---2020/03/27 03:08:47 PM---Hello
Whitney, I spent some good time going through the exaRITHIK SHARMA
---2020/03/27 03:08:47 PM---Hello Whitney, I spent some good time going
through the exact implementation of a few loop
From: RITHIK SHARMA <rithiksh02 at gmail.com>
To: whitneyt at ca.ibm.com
Cc: etiotto at gmail.com, Stefanos Baziotis <stefanos.baziotis at
gmail.com>,
llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, bmahjour at ca.ibm.com
Date: 2020/03/27 03:08 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [llvm-dev] [GSoC] Prospective student for Unify
ways to move code or check if code is safe to be moved
Hello Whitney,
I spent some good time going through the exact implementation of a few
loop transformation passes in llvm and for others, I tried to quickly get
an idea of what is going inside them with respect to the implementation
in llvm.
I also went through the CodeMoverUtils [1], I really appreciate the
effort of keeping it generic and decoupled from loop though being derived
from loop and aimed to be used for loop transformation. I also analyzed
Loop Fuse pass [2] as a reference as it already uses CodeMoverUtils which
helped me to concrete my understanding of the vision behind the
unification of code motion checks.
LICM [3] does hoisting [4] as well as sinking [5]. I thought about
extending the already available isSafeToMoveBefore [6] for hoisting the
code from loop body to the pre-header. In my opinion, hosting and sinking
are the basic code motions, exposing them in a robust and flexible way
will also help other transformations (maybe other non-loop
transformations).
I also saw that Loop Sink pass [7] uses the same checks [8] from LICM and
also found another code hoisting opportunity in Loop Rotation pass where
we once hoist to the pre-header [9]. I also analyzed passes like Loop
Unswitch [10] in the hope for some code motion opportunities but it seems
the passes which are expected to run after LICM are void of them (may not
be true for all). I limited myself to the loop passes in Transform/Scalar
and I'm planning to take a look into other loop passes as well.
Having said that, my concern right now is the proposal whose deadline is
approaching in 4 days, I would like to get a small feedback before the
deadline. I am aiming to prepare a draft by Monday morning (PST) so then
I may have a short window to incorporate the feedback. I also have two
coursework assignment deadlines end of this week which is also demanding
some of my effort other than attending the lectures.
I'll be glad to hear about your expectations for the proposal. I'm
planning to somehow meet them and will also continue to look into loop
passes for more code motion checks after the proposal deadline. Does this
look good to you? In my proposal can I focus on the findings that I'm
able to do before the deadline and keep some buffer for things that I may
find later as identifying all the existing ways for code motion in loop
transformations is a big portion of the proposed project.
1.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/CodeMoverUtils.cpp
2.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopFuse.cpp
3.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LICM.cpp
4.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LICM.cpp#L353
5.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LICM.cpp#L348
6.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/CodeMoverUtils.cpp#L299
7.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopSink.cpp
8.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopSink.cpp#L303
9.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopRotationUtils.cpp#L403
10.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopUnswitch.cpp
Best,
Rithik
On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 23:30, Stefanos Baziotis <
stefanos.baziotis at gmail.com> wrote:
Np, good luck! :)
- Stefanos
Στις Τρί, 24 Μαρ 2020 στις 8:55 μ.μ., ο/η RITHIK SHARMA <
rithiksh02 at gmail.com> έγραψε:
Many thanks, Stefanos! I really appreciate your help :) I heard
from Whitney.
Best,
Rithik
On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 23:08, Stefanos Baziotis <
stefanos.baziotis at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Rithik,
I CC'd the 2 other mentors and hopefully you'll get
answer.
Sorry, but I don't know of any other way to help. :/
You may also try to contact them privately.
Best,
Stefanos
Στις Τρί, 24 Μαρ 2020 στις 7:35 μ.μ., ο/η RITHIK SHARMA via
llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> έγραψε:
Ping!
I'm bit concern about the approaching deadline next week,
some pointers will be really appreciated and will be very
helpful to me.
Best regards,
Rithik Sharma
On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 at 01:24, RITHIK SHARMA <
rithiksh02 at gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I am an undergrad from India. This summer I'm
interested in working on unifying the code motion
checks as a GSoC intern with LLVM. I started reading
about classical data flow analysis since few months, I
see this as a great opportunity to start contributing
to LLVM. The idea of unifying all the code motion
checks into one place seems very rational and
interesting to me. As in the project description LICM
was mentioned, I have a basic idea about it and I spent
some time to go through its implementation in LLVM. It
makes a lot of sense to me to keep all code motion
checks at one place, say an analysis pass, I also
looked into GVN hoist & sink passes as they also have
some code motion logic. I'll start drafting the
proposal after your initial feedback/suggestions. I'm
really very excited to work on this.
Best Regards,
Rithik Sharma
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
https://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/20200330/f476b7a2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200330/f476b7a2/attachment-0001.gif>