Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "aihobyonvzxw7opsk1".
2019 May 15
3
Delinearization validity checks in DependenceAnalysis
...his comment for why they were needed and perhaps a better way to fix
it:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_llvm_llvm-2Dproject_commit_d143c65de3c884d09197da279d2f04f094efaf15-23diff-2D57473b376037dd3637516348b9b02556L3274&d=DwIFAw&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=aihobyOnVzXW7OPSK1-NiSYQkq7oP3ZSUVc4BemvrVo&m=46eKxI_sFjjeBzn7X-OLXSEUwHN-HVCD16TF9OuyIqc&s=adPvJDhPtFMlaTWihZmvWjXqFUFHDnzcV84oaDGlryM&e=
Any improvements to the delinearisation code would be most welcome.
Dave
From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Bardia
Mahjour vi...
2019 May 30
3
Loop Optimization Working Group
Dear LLVM community,
we would like to form a working group that focuses on loop
optimizations and the loop optimization pipeline in LLVM. This working
group would meet at a regular cadence (weekly or bi-weekly depending
on people's schedules) and discuss topics relevant to loop
optimizations. These topics would include:
- Implementation of current loop optimizations
- Proposals for
2019 Sep 13
3
Loop Opt WG Meeting Minutes for Sep 11, 2019
Thanks Florian.
Tim you said:
> Some cases can be undone by rematerialization, but not all, and it can
involve a lot of effort which increases compile time.
Do you have examples of cases where rematerialization is not possible? We
are interested in learning about any previous attempts at trying to address
the issue in RA. Have you tried it?
Bardia Mahjour
Compiler Optimizations
IBM Toronto
2019 May 16
2
Delinearization validity checks in DependenceAnalysis
...for why they were needed and perhaps a better way to fix
> it:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_llvm_llvm-2Dproject_commit_d143c65de3c884d09197da279d2f04f094efaf15-23diff-2D57473b376037dd3637516348b9b02556L3274&d=DwIFAw&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=aihobyOnVzXW7OPSK1-NiSYQkq7oP3ZSUVc4BemvrVo&m=46eKxI_sFjjeBzn7X-OLXSEUwHN-HVCD16TF9OuyIqc&s=adPvJDhPtFMlaTWihZmvWjXqFUFHDnzcV84oaDGlryM&e=
>
>
> Any improvements to the delinearisation code would be most welcome.
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at list...
2019 May 13
3
Delinearization validity checks in DependenceAnalysis
Hi all,
I have been looking at the `DependenceAnalysis` pass in
`llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis.h`.
In order for this analysis to produce accurate dependence vectors for
multi-dimensional arrays in nested loops, it needs to "delinearize" array
element accesses to recover the subscripts in each dimension of the array.
I believe that the current implementation of
2019 May 22
2
Delinearization validity checks in DependenceAnalysis
Hello
Yes, I agree that the SCEV cannot be simplified. Is my understanding correct that it is passed to a function like "isKnownNegative"? Which could still be able to prove is always true.
The delinearisation may be valid, depending on exactly how you define delinearisation (under what conditions it should be giving results). It would be invalid for DA to return a dependency of [0
2020 Apr 23
2
Incorrect behavior in the LLVM dependence analyzer
Hi all,
I am trying to use the dependence analyzer in a pass that I am writing and I was surprised to see an incorrect behavior when I try to query DependenceInfo for dependences between instructions. Specifically, if the two instructions are loads/stores accessing an array in a loop, the depend() method would return a dependence regardless of the order of instructions specified. (i.e. if the two