search for: greedi

I have encountered a rather odd situation with Greedy where it will end up spilling a register that was populated with a zero (with a trivially rematerializable load-immediate instruction). In fact, it spills 3 such values (LICM moves stuff out of a loop, register coalescer replaces copies with load-immediates and then Greedy spills them). I personally can't think of a situation where a spill

On Sep 26, 2011, at 2:41 AM, 陳韋任 wrote: >> The greedy allocator is global, but so was the old linear scan allocator. > > In http://blog.llvm.org/2011/09/greedy-register-allocation-in-llvm-30.html > , it says "The algorithm is local, and it cannot clean up messes that > extend beyond a single basic block". Does it mean the rewriter algorithm > not the linear scan?

The greedy allocator is global, but so was the old linear scan allocator. Cameron On Sep 26, 2011, at 2:12 AM, Carlo Alberto Ferraris <cafxx at strayorange.com> wrote: > Just a quick question: is greedy still a local allocator (i.e. only takes into consideration the current bb) or a global one (takes into consideration the whole function)? > <cafxx.vcf> >

I do have a reproducer, but it's not for the faint of heart :) This is from a large and messy C file (Perlbench's regexec.c), reduced by bugpoint down to 1050 lines of IR. Perhaps I can paste it on pastebin. Just for fun, I added some debug dumps for machine instructions that spill registers (i.e. return non-zero from MachineInstr::getFoldedSpillSize()) that are fed by load-immediates and

Il 26/09/2011 16:49, Jakob Stoklund Olesen ha scritto: > On Sep 26, 2011, at 2:41 AM, 陳韋任 wrote: > >>> The greedy allocator is global, but so was the old linear scan allocator. >> In http://blog.llvm.org/2011/09/greedy-register-allocation-in-llvm-30.html >> , it says "The algorithm is local, and it cannot clean up messes that >> extend beyond a single basic

Hi Kristof, Thanks for the measurements. > On May 24, 2017, at 6:00 AM, Kristof Beyls <kristof.beyls at arm.com> wrote: > >> >> On 23 May 2017, at 21:48, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com <mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>> wrote: >> >> Great! >> I thought I had to look at our pipeline at O0 to make sure optimized regalloc was

Hi Kristof, Thanks for going back so fast! > On May 24, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Kristof Beyls <kristof.beyls at arm.com> wrote: > >> >> On 24 May 2017, at 19:31, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com <mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Kristof, >> >> Thanks for the measurements. >> >>> On May 24, 2017, at

On Sep 28, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Sep 27, 2011, at 12:11 AM, Leo Romanoff wrote: > >> >> >> It is true that names are not always reflecting the essense. But on the other hand, there is a lot of ongoing research on register allocation (and compilers in general) and it looks like more and more such efforts choose LLVM as a platform for

On Sep 27, 2011, at 12:11 AM, Leo Romanoff wrote: > > > It is true that names are not always reflecting the essense. But on the other hand, there is a lot of ongoing research on register allocation (and compilers in general) and it looks like more and more such efforts choose LLVM as a platform for experimentation. Quite some results and comparisons are published. So, it would be nice

Just a quick question: is greedy still a local allocator (i.e. only takes into consideration the current bb) or a global one (takes into consideration the whole function)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110926/d87aa2bd/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text

> The greedy allocator is global, but so was the old linear scan allocator. In http://blog.llvm.org/2011/09/greedy-register-allocation-in-llvm-30.html , it says "The algorithm is local, and it cannot clean up messes that extend beyond a single basic block". Does it mean the rewriter algorithm not the linear scan? Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer Systems Lab,

I''m writing a web app in which I have several ''windows'' in which the user can perform given functionality. So for example I have one window which manages images on a server (drag an image into a folder and the file physically moved on the server via ajax ) These images can also be dragged into another window to create a slideshow. My problem

Hi Kristof, > On May 25, 2017, at 2:09 AM, Kristof Beyls <kristof.beyls at arm.com> wrote: > >> >> On 24 May 2017, at 22:01, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com <mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Kristof, >> >> Thanks for going back so fast! >> >>> On May 24, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Kristof Beyls

On May 3, 2011, at 12:03 PM, David A. Greene wrote: >> >> I am working my way through the regressions, looking for things the >> allocator did wrong. Any help is appreciated, please file bugs if you >> find examples of stupid register allocation. > > Certainly. I would ask that we keep linearscan around, if possible, as > long as there are significant

I don't understand which is the problem Could you help me please? Thanks in advance Marta > str(data_indiciN2) 'data.frame': 200 obs. of 36 variables: $ gruppo: Factor w/ 2 levels "0","1": 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ... $ I001N2: num 19.32 8.22 28.35 7.24 14.7 ... $ I002N2: num 2.92 2.54 0.11 1.6 7.12 ... $ I003N2: num -22.362 -0.222 -19.291

On 9/26/2017 6:47 PM, Matthias Braun wrote: > >> On Sep 26, 2017, at 3:33 PM, Geoff Berry <gberry at codeaurora.org >> <mailto:gberry at codeaurora.org>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 9/26/2017 6:11 PM, Matthias Braun wrote: >>>> On Sep 26, 2017, at 2:39 PM, Geoff Berry via llvm-dev >>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org

Thanks for the reduced test case, I’ll try to take a look by the end of the week. > On Feb 20, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Nemanja Ivanovic <nemanja.i.ibm at gmail.com> wrote: > > Finally managed to reduce this to something manageable: https://godbolt.org/z/Hw529k <https://godbolt.org/z/Hw529k> > > On line 40 of the output, we have a load-immediate to put zero into R3. Then we

On 9/26/2017 6:11 PM, Matthias Braun wrote: > >> On Sep 26, 2017, at 2:39 PM, Geoff Berry via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Mikael reported a machine verification failure in his out-of-tree target with the MachineCopyPropagation changes to forward registers (which is currently reverted). The verification in question is:

Hi,   We were using "linearscan" register scan with llc -O0 option. As per the llvm blog, this is replaced with greedy register alloation. http://blog.llvm.org/2011/09/greedy-register-allocation-in-llvm-30.html   But I think, this register allocation (i.e. 'greedy and 'basic') is blocked if used with -O0 option of llc. Only 'fast register allocator' option can be used

I have used the greedy.wilks to stepwise discriminant analysis, but it doesn't work with my dataset. I don't understand which is the problem Could you help me please? Thanks in advance Marta > str(data_indiciN2) 'data.frame': 200 obs. of 36 variables: $ gruppo: Factor w/ 2 levels "0","1": 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ... $ I001N2: num 19.32 8.22 28.35 7.24