search for: ipoe

On 7/17/13 12:35 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > >> 3. How to parallelize post-IPO stage >> ==================================== >> >> From 5k' high, the concept is very simple, just to >> step 1).divide the merged IR into small pieces, >> step 2).and compile

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 7/17/13 12:35 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 3. How to parallelize post-IPO stage >>> ==================================== >>> >>> From 5k'

Sean Silva via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > No tests fail with the patch below, so I would say it's pretty useless. It > seems that the C bindings are the only user but we can probably just have them > return IPSCCP instead. I don't necessarily think your conclusion is wrong, but the patch isn't proving what you think it's proving. In fact, the

Hi everyone! I have a question about data processing efficiency. My data are as follows: I have a data set on quarterly institutional ownership of equities; some of them have had recent IPOs, some have not (I have a binary flag set). The total dataset size is 700k+ rows. My goal is this: For every quarter since issue for each IPO, I need to find a "matched" firm in the same

The pass is pretty rudimental (as the comment at the top of the file hints), and it seems LLVM already has IPSCCP (which should do a better job at interprocedural constant propagation). I'm also not entirely sure it's used anywhere. Is there any reason to keep it around? Thanks, -- Davide "There are no solved problems; there are only problems that are more or less solved" --

On Jul 27, 2013, at 5:47 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Sean: > > I'm sorry I lie. I didn't mean to lie. I did try to avoid making a *BIG* change > to the IPO pass-ordering for now. However, when I make a minor change to > populateLTOPassManager() by separating module-pass and non-module-passes, I > saw quite a few performance

On 12 July 2013 15:49, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, There: > > This is the proposal for parallelizing post-ipo stage. See the following > for details. > > I also attach a toy-grade rudimentary implementation. This > implementation can be > used to illustrate some concepts here. This patch is not going to be > committed. > >

Andy and I briefly discussed this the other day, we have not yet got chance to list a detailed pass order for the pre- and post- IPO scalar optimizations. This is wish-list in our mind: pre-IPO: based on the ordering he propose, get rid of the inlining (or just inline tiny func), get rid of all loop xforms... post-IPO: get rid of inlining, or maybe we still need it, only

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > 3. How to parallelize post-IPO stage > ==================================== > > From 5k' high, the concept is very simple, just to > step 1).divide the merged IR into small pieces, > step 2).and compile each of this pieces independendly. > step 3) the objects of each piece

Hi,It seems inliner does not take into account if a call is inside a loop. I'm trying to figure out if loop-info can be made available to the inliner. When I try to add LoopInfoWrapperPass to Inliner.cpp, diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/Inliner.cpp b/llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/Inliner.cppindex 568707d..cb51ea8 100644--- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/Inliner.cpp+++

Hi, Sean: I'm sorry I lie. I didn't mean to lie. I did try to avoid making a *BIG* change to the IPO pass-ordering for now. However, when I make a minor change to populateLTOPassManager() by separating module-pass and non-module-passes, I saw quite a few performance difference, most of them are degradations. Attacking these degradations one by one in a piecemeal manner is wasting

Hi, we are currently using pppd to connect to the net through pppoe. Some providers seem to propose ipoe instead of pppoe and I cannot find any clue on how/where/if_possible to set up such connection in CentOS. Anybody has any experience with ipoe...? Thx, JD

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > > Personally, I think the right approach is to add a bool to > createGlobalDCEPass defaulting to true named something like > IsAfterInlining. In most standard pass pipelines, GlobalDCE runs after > inlining for obvious reasons, so the default makes sense. The special case > is

On Jul 12, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > 6) Miscellaneous > =========== > Will partitioning degrade performance in theory. I think it depends on the definition of > performance. If performance means execution-time, I guess it dose not. > However, if performance includes code-size, I think it may have some negative impact. > Following

Hello, I am working on an LLVM-based JIT for a dynamically typed language (freemat.sf.net), and would like to commend the LLVM team on an awesome piece of work. One issue I ran into that I was hoping for some clarification. Nominally, I had started out by performing code generation from the AST into a function that was added to the current module. I then ran a PassManager on that module to

<head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0"> <meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#CCCCCC"> <div

<head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0"> <meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#CCCCCC"> <div

Hi, There: This is the proposal for parallelizing post-ipo stage. See the following for details. I also attach a toy-grade rudimentary implementation. This implementation can be used to illustrate some concepts here. This patch is not going to be committed. Unfortunately, this weekend I will be too busy to read emails. Please do not construe delayed response as being rude :-).

Another alternative could be: ORE.emitMissed(DEBUG_TYPE, ...) << ... Then the first line of emitMissed does a check if it is enabled and if not then returns a dummy stream that does nothing for operator<< (and short-circuits all the stream operations) On Sep 15, 2017 2:21 PM, "Adam Nemet via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: For better readability we

FYI - There is currently an architectural issue which prevents the SCC pass manager (which runs the inliner) from relying on Function or Loop analysis passes. This is the primary motivation of the pass manager rewrite that Chandler Carruth has been working on for the last two years. He's getting relatively close to that project being done, but until then you are going to be effectively