Displaying 8 results from an estimated 8 matches for "chrecs".
Did you mean:
chrec
2007 Nov 30
2
[LLVMdev] LLVM and OpenMP
...s, but haven't yet decided on the
> method. Maybe some of you have experience in the area and would like to
> advise me something? In the next few days I am going to take a look at
> the methods based on chains of recurrences algebra. They seem
> particularly interesting because chrecs are already implemented in the
> scalar evolution pass.
Yes, I'd strongly suggest implementing one of the approaches based on the
chrec analysis we have in the scev pass.
-Chris
--
http://nondot.org/sabre/
http://llvm.org/
2007 Nov 29
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM and OpenMP
...ntly studying some papers,
but haven't yet decided on the method. Maybe some of you have experience
in the area and would like to advise me something? In the next few days
I am going to take a look at the methods based on chains of recurrences
algebra. They seem particularly interesting because chrecs are already
implemented in the scalar evolution pass. Given the limited time I have
for the project, I don't know how precise (and buggy;)) my
implementation will be. However, if it appears to be usable, I'll be
happy to contribute.
--Wojtek
2008 Jan 17
2
[LLVMdev] LLVM and OpenMP
...;t yet decided on the
> > method. Maybe some of you have experience in the area and would like to
> > advise me something? In the next few days I am going to take a look at
> > the methods based on chains of recurrences algebra. They seem
> > particularly interesting because chrecs are already implemented in the
> > scalar evolution pass.
>
> Yes, I'd strongly suggest implementing one of the approaches based on the
> chrec analysis we have in the scev pass.
>
Yup, just get the array accesses under scev form, and set a constraint
system from these. Once...
2007 Nov 29
3
[LLVMdev] LLVM and OpenMP
On Nov 29, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Wojciech Matyjewicz wrote:
> As you have noticed, loops aren't represented directly in the LLVM IR.
> However, there are analysis passes which may be helpful to
> "reconstruct"
> them. For example: LoopInfo pass detects natural loops (as sets of
> basic
> blocks) and ScalarEvolution pass finds loop induction variables (and
>
2008 Jan 17
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM and OpenMP
>> Yes, I'd strongly suggest implementing one of the approaches based
>> on the
>> chrec analysis we have in the scev pass.
>>
>
> Yup, just get the array accesses under scev form, and set a constraint
> system from these. Once you set up the constraint systems for the
> dependence distance vectors, you're almost done. You can look at how
> this
2006 Jul 10
1
[LLVMdev] enabling Debian x86_64 for llvm 1.7
In trying to package up LLVM for Debian, it appears that x86_64 is no
longer a supported architecture -- so, my first question is, is that
correct? Best I can tell, the only thing that's supposed to work for
x86_64 is the C backend.
For Debian, I need to build everything from scratch. When trying to
build llvm-gcc4 from source, though, I get part way through the build
and am told that
2007 Apr 27
2
[LLVMdev] Boostrap Failure -- Expected Differences?
The saga continues.
I've been tracking the interface changes and merging them with
the refactoring work I'm doing. I got as far as building stage3
of llvm-gcc but the object files from stage2 and stage3 differ:
warning: ./cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: ./cc1plus-checksum.o differs
(Are the above two ok?)
The list below is clearly bad. I think it's every object file in
the
2007 Apr 30
0
[LLVMdev] Boostrap Failure -- Expected Differences?
On Apr 27, 2007, at 3:50 PM, David Greene wrote:
> The saga continues.
>
> I've been tracking the interface changes and merging them with
> the refactoring work I'm doing. I got as far as building stage3
> of llvm-gcc but the object files from stage2 and stage3 differ:
>
>
> warning: ./cc1-checksum.o differs
> warning: ./cc1plus-checksum.o differs
>
>