search for: aggress

Anyone know if it is possible to control how aggressively the "Aggressive" mode behaves. Meaning, is it possible to dial back the aggressive mode to have a happy medium between Regular and the Aggressive defaults. I have a situation where Normal echo cancellation is not quite enough, however when I turn on aggressive mode We are attackin...

...ses of CSRs in the entry block. So CSR spills/reloads are executed even when the early exit block is taken. int getI(int i); int foo(int *P, int i) { if (i>0) return P[i]; i = getI(i); return P[i]; } It's not that hard to find such cases where RegAllocGreedy aggressively allocates a CSRs when a live range expands across a call-site. That's because of the conservatively initialized CSRCost, causing RegAllocGreedy to strongly favour allocating a CSR over splitting a region. Since allocation of CSRs requires the cost of spilling CSRs, allocating CSRs is not...

...may be causing this? Thanks a lot for your help! Raphael Royaute PhD candidate Dept Natural Resource Sciences McGill University, Macdonald campus Below is my code and output (my apologies, this is a pretty lengthy output): Riskmodel2_cfa <- '# Latent variable ????? ????? SySt =~ Activity+Aggression+Voracity # Residuals ??????? Boldness~~Boldness' fit.riskmodel2_multi_Ad_cfa <- cfa(Riskmodel2_cfa, data=Ad_scale, std.lv=T,std.ov=T, ???????????????????????????????? se= "boot",test="bootstrap", ???????????????????????????????? bootstrap=5000L,group="Site")...

Is there a way to set how aggressive the inliner pass (createFunctionInliningPass) without going through the command line interface? Is there any reason InlineLimit isn't an argument to the createFunctionInliningPass function? Thanks, Robert

...> That's correct, -g must not affect code generation. This is a > fundamental mantra among debug-info people. I think you both got me on the wrong side, though I admit my email wasn't clear. I didn't mean to suggest changing codegen for debug purposes only, but on -O1 to be less aggressive on some parts than it is today. Some flag saying "optimize-for-debug". It's not easy to know what kind of optimization you can do that won't change how the program runs, and thus changing how the program breaks, so maybe the -g special flag was a bad idea to begin with. But th...

On Mar 13, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Arnaud Allard de Grandmaison wrote: > Hi all, > > The IndVarSimplify pass seems to be too aggressive when it enlarge the induction variable type ; this can pessimize the generated code when the new induction variable size is not natively supported by the target. This is probably not an issue for x86_64, which supports natively all types, but it is a real one for several embedded targets, with v...

...rom alias analysis restrict some of the memory based optimizations to proceed further. We observed some cases with LICM, where things are beyond aliasing. In cases where alias analysis is unsure we like to use loop versioning as an alternative. Loop Versioning will creates version of the loop with aggressive alias and the other with conservative (default) alias. Aggressive alias version of loop will have all the memory access marked as no-alias. These two version of loop will be preceded by a memory runtime check. This runtime check consists of bound checks for all unique memory accessed in loop, an...

Hi, Regarding the mischeduler, I wonder // For loops that are acyclic path limited, aggressively schedule for // latency. This can result in very long dependence chains scheduled in // sequence, so once every cycle (when CurrMOps == 0), switch to normal // heuristics. if (Rem.IsAcyclicLatencyLimited && !Zone->getCurrMOps() && tryLatency(TryCand, Cand, *Zone))...

On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 12:16:12PM -0700, Reid Spencer wrote: > So I propose: > [snip] > -O3 = aggressive optimization, regardless of computation time with the > effect of producing the fastest executable I would suggest splitting -O3 into 2 or more levels of optimization, because as written, -O3 sounds pretty scary: "regardless of computation time", and given some people who t...

Hi, I have a new variant of Aggressive Dead Code Elimination that also removes dead branching. It is designed to minimize the cost of control-dependence analysis in the common case where almost the entire program is live. It also can optionally remove dead but may-be-infinite loops. When enabled for –O3 (replacing current ADCE pass)...

David Callahan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > Hi, > > I have a new variant of Aggressive Dead Code Elimination that also > removes dead branching. It is designed to minimize the cost of > control-dependence analysis in the common case where almost the entire > program is live. It also can optionally remove dead but > may-be-infinite loops. > > When enabled for –O3...

On Mar 13, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Arnaud Allard de Grandmaison wrote: > Hi all, > > The IndVarSimplify pass seems to be too aggressive when it enlarge the induction variable type ; this can pessimize the generated code when the new induction variable size is not natively supported by the target. This is probably not an issue for x86_64, which supports natively all types, but it is a real one for several embedded targets, with v...

...a non-goal. > Also, as a bit of a teaser, I think Richard Smith is going to be looking into providing much more extensive optional *checking* of undefined behavior. Essentially, '-fcatch-undefined-behavior' may grow some serious teeth. This should allow users to check their code fairly aggressively for UB but not needlessly punish code or those debugging code. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120727/44738c57/attachment.html>

Processing commands for control at bugs.debian.org: > reassign 648146 logcheck-database 1.3.13 Bug #648146 [logcheck-database-1.3.13] ignore.d.server/ssh is too aggressive Warning: Unknown package 'logcheck-database-1.3.13' Bug reassigned from package 'logcheck-database-1.3.13' to 'logcheck-database'. Bug No longer marked as found in versions squeeze. Bug #648146 [logcheck-database] ignore.d.server/ssh is too aggressive Bug Marked as found...

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Robert Zeh wrote: > Is there a way to set how aggressive the inliner pass > (createFunctionInliningPass) without going through the command line > interface? Nope. Well, you could call cl::ParseCommandLine yourself (passing in a static array) like llvm-gcc does, but other than that "no". > Is there any reason InlineLimit isn'...

[+Danny] ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Justin Bogner via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "David Callahan via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 12:36:50 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: New aggressive dead code elimination pass > > David Callahan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > > Hi, > > > > I have a new variant of Aggressive Dead Code Elimination that also > > removes dead branching. It is designed to minimize the cost of > > con...

...int getI(int i); >> >> int foo(int *P, int i) { >> >> if (i>0) >> >> return P[i]; >> >> i = getI(i); >> >> return P[i]; >> >> } >> >> It's not that hard to find such cases where RegAllocGreedy >> aggressively allocates a CSRs when a live range expands across a >> call-site. That's because of the conservatively initialized >> CSRCost, causing RegAllocGreedy to strongly favour allocating a CSR >> over splitting a region. Since allocation of CSRs requires the cost >> of sp...

> AFAIU, it's not OK for -g to affect code generation. I agree with the > rest of your plan. That's correct, -g must not affect code generation. This is a fundamental mantra among debug-info people. > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > wrote: > > On 27 November 2013 08:43, Evgeniy Stepanov >

...up some model(s) in R that can help with my hypotheses. I am having trouble figuring out which statistical tests/models to use for my two hypotheses. #1: Comparing the presence of an observer (a categorical variable consisting of either Approaching/Near, Near or On Top of Cage) to the presence of aggressive behavior (again categorical variables consisting of Aggression, Freeze/Hide Behavior, Escape Behavior, Aggressive Vocalizations and Fear Vocalizations each as separate binary categories in my spreadsheet) #2: Comparing the age of the monkey (continuous variable) to Freeze/Hide behavior, Aggress...

...l.cpp of Clang creates the TargetMachine with the optimization level based on below mentioned logic CodeGenOpt::Level OptLevel = CodeGenOpt::Default; switch (CodeGenOpts.OptimizationLevel) { default: break; case 0: OptLevel = CodeGenOpt::None; break; case 3: OptLevel = CodeGenOpt::Aggressive; break; } As per my understanding, the correspondence between optimization level and CodeGenOpt is as below O0 - none O1 - less O2 - default O3 - aggressive My goal is to turn on a target dependent codegen optimization at -O1(less). The TargetMachine is constructed with &q...