search for: loopdistribute

Hi Adam, On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Adam Nemet via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mar 22, 2016, at 5:13 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> > wrote: > > > > On 03/20/2016 05:38 AM, Aries Gunawan via llvm-dev wrote: > > > *Loop Dependence Analysis Infrastructure. *I have looked in the source > codes repo and I

> On Mar 22, 2016, at 5:13 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > > > > On 03/20/2016 05:38 AM, Aries Gunawan via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I am very interested in contributing to LLVM project in this year’s GSoC. I am new with LLVM, but this is used in the compiler course in my

Hi, Thanks for the reply. Few thoughts inlined. On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Vikram, > > On Feb 18, 2016, at 9:21 AM, Vikram TV via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have created a patch (up for review at: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17386) > that does Loop Fusion implementation.

Hi all, I have created a patch (up for review at: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17386) that does Loop Fusion implementation. Approach: Legality: Currently it can fuse two adjacent loops whose iteration spaces are same and are at same depth. Dependence legality: Currently, dependence legality cannot be checked across loops. Hence the loops are cloned along a versioned path, unconditionally fused

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 6:27 AM, Vikram TV <vikram.tarikere at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Vikram TV <vikram.tarikere at gmail.com <mailto:vikram.tarikere at gmail.com>> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the reply. Few thoughts inlined. > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com

Hi Adam, I'm looking into your LLE pass in order to remove the RAR dependency from GVN, and I've hit a problem that might need some more thinking. I've modified your patch to cope with both kinds of dependencies in the ForwardingCandidate class, but the way the pass gathers informations only brings RAW dependencies: const auto *Deps = LAI.getDepChecker().getDependences(); if

...on > > fails, the original code is executed. > > This sounds like it will bloat code for a lot of cold cases. Or worse, > get it wrong, and put hot code in the cold path. Are you arguing against code versioning? It is already done today by multiple passes such as LoopVersioningLICM, LoopDistribute, LoopUnrollAndJam and LoopVectorize. The proposal explicitly tries to avoid code bloat by having just one fallback copy. Runtime conditions can be chosen more or less optimistically, but I don't see how this should be an argument for all kinds of versioning. If you are concerned about bloat in...

On 09/22/2017 12:03 AM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > Hi Hal, > > > 2017-09-21 20:59 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>: > > > On 09/12/2017 10:26 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner wrote: >> >> >>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev >>> <llvm-dev at

Hi Hal, 2017-09-21 20:59 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> : > > On 09/12/2017 10:26 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner wrote: > > > > On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 09/11/2017 12:26 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: > > Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael and others, > *...* >

On 09/11/2017 12:26 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: > Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael and others, > >> On Sep 1, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> ** >> >> *Hi everyone,As you may know, stock LLVM does not provide the kind of >> advanced loop transformations

2017-09-21 22:22 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>: > > On 09/22/2017 12:03 AM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > > Hi Hal, > > > 2017-09-21 20:59 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > >> >> On 09/12/2017 10:26 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via

On 09/22/2017 12:25 AM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > > > 2017-09-21 22:22 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov > <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>>: > > > On 09/22/2017 12:03 AM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: >> Hi Hal, >> >> >> 2017-09-21 20:59 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 09/11/2017 12:26 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: >> Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael and others, >> >>> On Sep 1, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >>> >>>

...R will invariably create > some adoption barriers. I see it as an advantage in respect of adoption: It can be switched on and off without affecting other parts. > > Are you arguing against code versioning? It is already done today by > > multiple passes such as LoopVersioningLICM, LoopDistribute, > > LoopUnrollAndJam and LoopVectorize. The proposal explicitly tries to > > avoid code bloat by having just one fallback copy. Runtime conditions > > can be chosen more or less optimistically, but I don't see how this > > should be an argument for all kinds of versioni...

On 09/12/2017 10:26 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner wrote: > > >> On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> >> On 09/11/2017 12:26 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: >>> Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael and others, >>> *...* >>> >>> One thing that I’d

A completely non-technical point, but what's the current "polly" license? Does integrating that code conflict in any way with the work being done to relicense llvm? Does adding polly expose any additional legal risks? Some people from Reservoir labs have explicitly stated to me that some of their patents target polyhedral optimizations. You should almost certainly review their

On 03/20/2016 05:38 AM, Aries Gunawan via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I am very interested in contributing to LLVM project in this year’s > GSoC. I am new with LLVM, but this is used in the compiler course in > my university. So, I am thinking to involve in LLVM development to > have a better knowledge of the system. Currently, I am preparing the > proposal.

Hi everyone, I am very interested in contributing to LLVM project in this year's GSoC. I am new with LLVM, but this is used in the compiler course in my university. So, I am thinking to involve in LLVM development to have a better knowledge of the system. Currently, I am preparing the proposal. One of the project that caught my eyes is "New Transformations and Analysis". Several

In the 2018 LLVM DevMtg [1], I presented some shortcomings of how LLVM optimizes loops. In summary, the biggest issues are (a) the complexity of writing a new loop optimization pass (including needing to deal with a variety of low-level issues, a significant amount of required boilerplate, the difficulty of analysis preservation, etc.), (b) independent optimization heuristics and a fixed pass

Hi Hal, On 09/21, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev wrote: > > On 09/12/2017 10:26 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner wrote: > > > > > >>On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev > >><llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > >> > >> > >>On 09/11/2017 12:26 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: > >>>Hi Hal,