search for: kchoi

...nchmarks to the LLVM test suite? > > > > > > > *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org > <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>] *On Behalf Of *Chandler Carruth via > llvm-dev > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:27 > *To:* Flamedoge <code.kchoi at gmail.com>; Dehao Chen <dehao at google.com> > *Cc:* llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] Enable vectorizer-maximize-bandwidth by default? > > > > If you care about such hardware, please run benchmarks with the flag? > > > &g...

...rrent fix in SLM there is no need to wait for other issues to be fixed (minor issue). So you can move on with your patch. From: Agabaria, Mohammed Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 15:24 To: Zaks, Ayal <ayal.zaks at intel.com>; Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>; Flamedoge <code.kchoi at gmail.com>; Dehao Chen <dehao at google.com> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: RE: [llvm-dev] Enable vectorizer-maximize-bandwidth by default? Guys I have uploaded a fix on phabricator which fix the issue in SLM: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33983 From: Zaks, Ayal...

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 4:01 PM Adam Nemet via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I will run it on Cyclone/AArch64 next week. > FYI, we're still waiting on these Adam... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170530/7cb390ca/attachment.html>

Hi Kevin, On April 11, 2017 at 4:14:14 PM, Flamedoge (code.kchoi at gmail.com) wrote: > So only "non-freed" malloc pointers are No-Alias which makes it > flow-sensitive. There is no reason why malloc couldn't return previously > freed location. Yes. Talking to Nick Lewycky on IRC, I figured out a shorter way of saying what I wanted to sa...

...up: >clang++ axpy.cu -o axpy --cuda-gpu-arch=sm_35 -L/usr/local/cuda/lib64 -I/usr/local/cuda/include -lcudart_static -ldl -lrt -pthread error: unable to create target: 'No available targets are compatible with this triple.' ________________________________ From: Kevin Choi <code.kchoi at gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 3:44 PM To: Xipeng Shen Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] CUDA compilation "No available targets are compatible with this triple." problem I'm assuming you are following guide at https://llvm.org/docs/CompileCudaWi...

Hi Quentin, MyInst is a custom instruction that has implicit-defs of fixed registers. The implicit-defs are seen at the end of Instruction Selection. I'd like to add a report, but I am working on an out-of-tree backend based on 7.0. I can try to help reduce the testcase down. Filed https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41790 Regards, Kevin On 2019-05-07 3:45 p.m., Quentin Colombet wrote:

...d subsequent passes. I have attached the .bc file. I think I will try to dump out more TBAA metadata between passes. The method in interest is @main. On 20 July 2016 at 11:32, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Kevin Choi <code.kchoi at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for quick reply Daniel, >> >> I tried to make a simple C testcase, but could not reproduce the same >> condition with output from Clang. >> > > even if you have a .ll file you can share, that would be helpful. > > >...

I have modified the example test case for UB error, still it didn’t unroll void foo(int x) { int p, i = 1; int mat[9][9][9]; for (p = (x+1) ; p < (x+3) ;p++) mat[x][p-1][i] = mat[x][p-1][i] + 5; } Regard, Deepali From: Kevin Choi [mailto:code.kchoi at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 1:20 PM To: Rai, Deepali Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] SCEV cannot compute the trip count of Simple loop void foo(int x) { int p, i = 1; int mat[6][6][6]; for (p = x+3 ; p<= x+6 ;p++) mat[x][p][i] = mat[x][p][i] +...

Thanks! That should get me on the right track. Direct reply was accidental. Thanks for putting me back on the list :-) I'll repost with details once I've got it working. On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi John, > > [Adding llvm-dev again; best to keep these things in the open so they > show up in future searches].

@Sanjoy, what's the issue with <nsw>? Moreover, why can't SCEV detect that x is loop invariant and just take the diff/incr? On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Kevin Choi <code.kchoi at gmail.com> wrote: > Assuming compiler assumes program is free of UB, I suppose trip count of 2 > is always valid. I misplaced valid to trip count when it should've been > "program is valid only for x in [0.6]". > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Mehdi Amini &lt...

...C std, > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/WG14/www/docs/n1570.pdf > > Regards, > Kevin > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers. > com> wrote: > >> Hi Kevin, >> >> On April 11, 2017 at 4:14:14 PM, Flamedoge (code.kchoi at gmail.com) wrote: >> > So only "non-freed" malloc pointers are No-Alias which makes it >> > flow-sensitive. There is no reason why malloc couldn't return previously >> > freed location. >> >> Yes. >> >> Talking to Nick Lewycky on I...

> On Sep 16, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > Hi Mehdi, > > Mehdi Amini wrote: > > > >> On Sep 16, 2016, at 1:56 PM, Kevin Choi via llvm-dev > >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > >> > >> > int mat[9][9][9]; > >> > for (p =

Thanks for quick reply Daniel, I tried to make a simple C testcase, but could not reproduce the same condition with output from Clang. I suppose I could modify the C code to make it look similar with TBAA's; I may be able to provide this by eod. > store %ptr above the load. My mistake; I was referring to the store $lcssa in bb2. Looking at the C source code, it should definitely alias

Hi, I have trouble compiling CUDA code with Clang. The following is a command I tried: > clang++ axpy.cu -o axpy --cuda-gpu-arch=sm_35 --cuda-path=/usr/local/cuda The error message is error: unable to create target: 'No available targets are compatible with this triple.' The info of the LLVM I'm using is as follows: > lang++ --version clang version 6.0.0

...l but solving this problem is hard. By running after regalloc, we basically have a heuristic that does this naming for us. Cheers, -Quentin > On Aug 26, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > From: "Kevin Choi" <code.kchoi at gmail.com <mailto:code.kchoi at gmail.com>> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> > Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 4:55:29...

Hello, I issued the following command to point the build to use clang and clang++, from a local llvm build directory included in PATH, instead of /usr/bin/{cc,c++}, cmake -DCMAKE_C_COMPILER=clang -DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER=clang++ ../llvm_src The configuration failed with the error stating the compiler didn't recognize '-std=c++11' flag, whereas clang compiled a dummy c++ file with

Hi All, I am trying to unroll the below loop, but couldn't as SCEV returns TripCount as 0. void foo(int x) { int p, i = 1; int mat[6][6][6]; for (p = x+3 ; p<= x+6 ;p++) mat[x][p][i] = mat[x][p][i] + 5; } For a quick reference I have added the generated IR compiled with clang using -O3. Please let me know if this is an known issue in SCEV or I am missing something here ? ;

Just for the interest of discussion, I find it completely weird and interesting that GCC needs to build itself 3 times to fully bootstrap. Has there been any interest in looking at a single compile build? I don't exactly know the limitations, but my naive thinking is that C++14 compiler source parsed by C++14 capable compiler and codegen'd to C99 (or older) source should make it compilable

I think the "Motivation" section explained that. I too first thought about "why not at IR?" but the reason looks like MIR, post-RA has the most accurate heuristics (best way to know looks like actually getting there). Do you know if there is any experimental pass that relies on deriving heuristics by a feedback loop after letting, ie. a duplicate module/function/block continue

Hi Suman, I think you can ascertain pureness automatically leveraging the compiler instead of manually tagging attribute to each method and call-site. It would seem like impurity should be a transitive attribute. So this would conflict with below. __attribute__((annotate("pure"))) int add(uint32_t a, uint32_t b) { // impure by calling printf... ... printf("%d + %d =