Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "layor".
Did you mean:
layer
2012 Oct 02
1
[LLVMdev] [RFC] OpenMP Representation in LLVM IR
...st make calls to runtime routines?"
>
> Granted, this is the easiest and cheapest way to support OpenMP...
> that throws away the whole notion of "optimizing compilation" and
> "front-end / back-end decoupling".
How? Nothing prevents the use of an intermediate layor to handle
high-level transformation.
> Wait a sec... LLVM IR is meant to be portable and supporting
> "life-long program analysis and transformation". Locking it with
> target machine's OpenMP runtime calls from the very beginning is not
> the best way to acheive these go...
2007 Aug 02
4
Poor Performance WhenNumber of Files > 1M
Hi all,
I plan on having about 100M files totaling about 8.5TiBytes. To see
how ext3 would perform with large numbers of files I've written a test
program which creates a configurable number of files into a configurable
number of directories, reads from those files, lists them and then
deletes them. Even up to 1M files ext3 seems to perform well and scale
linearly; the time to execute
2012 Oct 02
0
[LLVMdev] [RFC] OpenMP Representation in LLVM IR
Hi David,
Thank you for your comments.
Basically, I agree with Hal's answers -- nothing substantial to add to
what he already said.
As for
> Again, I only skimmed the document, but I was left with the question,
> "why not just make calls to runtime routines?"
Granted, this is the easiest and cheapest way to support OpenMP...
that throws away the whole notion of
2012 Oct 02
2
[LLVMdev] [RFC] OpenMP Representation in LLVM IR
Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> writes:
Hi Hal,
> As you may know, this is the third such proposal over the past two
> months, one by me
> (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-August/052472.html)
This link seems to be broken. I missed your earlier proposal and would
like to read it. As with this proposal, I fear any direct
parallelization support in LLVM is going to