search for: loopunrol

...ed to be able to do this, and what's wrong if so. Here's how I configured it: ../llvm-darcslocal/llvm/configure --with-llvmgccdir=$LLVMGCCDIR --prefix=$HOME/Documents/hpcl/LLVM/install The results work fine when building for ppc. Here's what I tried: LLVM/cfe-src/install/bin/gcc -o loopUnroll loopUnroll.c LLVM/obj-llvm-darcslocal/Debug/bin/llvmc -O3 -o loopUnroll-llvm loopUnroll.bc llvm-ld: warning: Cannot find library 'c' LLVM/obj-llvm-darcslocal/Debug/bin/llc -march=x86 -f -filetype=obj -o loopUnroll-x86 loopUnroll.bc LLVM/obj-llvm-darcslocal/../llvm-darcslocal/llvm/lib/Cod...

Hi, just a quick question about the intent of the ApproximateLoopSize() function in LoopUnroll.cpp: If a loop contains debug stoppoint intrinsics, does it make sense to count them? My understanding is that they are removed when not running under llvm-db anyway, so we probably shouldn't make size judgements based on them. Is that right, or am I missing something? Anyway, if I'm rig...

...doing something like llvmgcc -> gccas -> opt -> llc ? I've given up on the filetype=obj argument, so now the problem is that llc is crashing when I use -march=ia64. I'd appreciate help tracking this down. I've included the backtrace here. Thanks, -mike (gdb) run -march=ia64 loopUnroll.bc -f Starting program: /Users/mike/Documents/hpcl/LLVM/obj-llvm-darcslocal/Debug/bin/llc -march=ia64 loopUnroll.bc -f Reading symbols for shared libraries . done Program received signal EXC_BAD_ACCESS, Could not access memory. Reason: KERN_PROTECTION_FAILURE at address: 0x00000018 0x00513d50 in...

Hi All, the attached patch performs the splitting in the proposed manner. before applying the patch, please execute svn cp lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopUnroll.cpp lib/Transforms/Utils/UnrollLoop.cpp to make the patch apply and preserve proper history. Transforms/Utils/UnrollLoop.cpp contains the unrollLoop function, which is now used by the LoopUnroll pass. I've also moved the RemapInstruction and FoldBlockIntoPredecessor support functions there....

I've done some minimal testing on FreeBSD 8.x i386. When running make check I get: # of expected passes 2188 # of unexpected failures 1 # of expected failures 6 The error output is: Running /usr/cvsports/devel/llvm/work/llvm-2.2/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/dg.exp ... FAIL: /usr/cvsports/devel/llvm/work/llvm-2.2/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/2007-11-05-Crash.ll for PR1770 Failed with signal(SIGSEGV) at line 1 while running: llvm-as < /usr/cvsports/devel/llvm/work/llvm-2.2/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/2007-11-05-Crash.ll | opt -disable-output -loop-unro...

LLVMers, The next version of the 2.2 prerelease is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.2/ Please see my last email for testing directions: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-January/012249.html Please complete all testing by February 10th at 5PM PST. Thanks! -Tanya

Hi, the attached patch splits the loop unroll pass into a LoopUnroll superclass that implements the unrolling mechanism, and a SimpleLoopUnroll subclass implementing the current policy. This split is modeled after the split between Inliner and SimpleInliner. The superclass currently still finds out the TripCount and TripMultiple, and passes those, together with th...

Hello Matthijs, Separating mechanism from policy is a good thing for the LoopUnroll pass. Instead of moving the policy to a subclass though, I think it'd be better to move the mechanism, the unrollLoop function, out to be a standalone utility function, with the LoopInfo object passed in explicitly. FoldBlockIntoPredecessor would also be good to make into a standalone utility...

Hi, please find an updated patch attached that incorporates the (trivial) changes introduced by r50696 and which makes this patch apply cleanly again. Gr. Matthijs -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: split-unroll.diff Type: text/x-diff Size: 14660 bytes Desc: not available URL:

...sage& AU) const { AU.addRequired<LoopInfo>(); AU.addPreserved<LoopInfo>(); AU.addRequiredID(LoopSimplifyID); AU.addPreservedID(LoopSimplifyID); AU.addRequiredID(LCSSAID); AU.addPreservedID(LCSSAID); } However, I couldn't figure out how to call the LoopRotate and LoopUnroll passes since I cannot use addRequiredID or addRequired for these two transformations. In Scalar.h, I found: > Pass *createLoopUnrollPass(int Threshold = -1, int Count = -1, int AllowPartial = -1); > Pass *createLoopRotatePass(); Is to call these methods the way to go? How?, can somebody...

...t;LoopInfo>(); > AU.addPreserved<LoopInfo>(); > AU.addRequiredID(LoopSimplifyID); > AU.addPreservedID(LoopSimplifyID); > AU.addRequiredID(LCSSAID); > AU.addPreservedID(LCSSAID); > } > > However, I couldn't figure out how to call the LoopRotate and > LoopUnroll passes since I cannot use addRequiredID or addRequired for > these two transformations. > > In Scalar.h, I found: > >> Pass *createLoopUnrollPass(int Threshold = -1, int Count = -1, int AllowPartial = -1); >> Pass *createLoopRotatePass(); > > > Is to call these...

Hello Matthijs, On May 9, 2008, at 3:47 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > Hi All, > > the attached patch performs the splitting in the proposed manner. > before applying the patch, please execute > svn cp lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopUnroll.cpp lib/Transforms/Utils/ > UnrollLoop.cpp > to make the patch apply and preserve proper history. > > Transforms/Utils/UnrollLoop.cpp contains the unrollLoop function, > which is now > used by the LoopUnroll pass. I've also moved the RemapInstruction and > FoldBlockInto...

Dan, On May 6, 2008, at 5:56 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > This should still make it easy to write new unrolling passes with > custom heuristics, but it would also be more flexible for passes to > do unrolling in combination with other transformations. Do you mean unrolling during other transformation or before/after other transformation ? Do you have specific example in mind ? Thanks, -

On May 6, 2008, at 8:30 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > Dan, > > On May 6, 2008, at 5:56 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > >> This should still make it easy to write new unrolling passes with >> custom heuristics, but it would also be more flexible for passes to >> do unrolling in combination with other transformations. > > Do you mean unrolling during other transformation or

Hi Dan, > in the AMD 5.5 What's that? Got a link? Google only finds some kind of golf cart powered by the "Advanced Motors & Drivers 5.5" engine :-) Gr. Matthijs -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL:

Hi Dan, please find an updated patch attached (don't forget to run the svn cp command I posted earlier, before applying this patch). I've incorporated all the changes we've discussed. Gr. Matthijs -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL:

On May 13, 2008, at 3:17 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > Hi Dan, > > please find an updated patch attached (don't forget to run the svn > cp command > I posted earlier, before applying this patch). > > I've incorporated all the changes we've discussed. Looks good. I just committed it as r51083. Thanks, Dan

On May 7, 2008, at 1:08 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > Hi Dan, > >> This should still make it easy to write new unrolling passes with >> custom heuristics, but it would also be more flexible for passes to >> do unrolling in combination with other transformations. > Agreed. > > To shed some light on my specific requirements, I am working with an > architecture

...Granted, this is not a lot of data... 2. Command-line options are currently used for codegen options in inherently non-thread-safe ways. (1) is mostly self-explanatory and has a bug about it, but (2) requires a bit more explanation. Take for example the "-unroll-threshold" option in LoopUnroll. If I'm setting up a pass pipeline programmatically, I add the LoopUnroll pass to the PassManager, but I cannot set the unroll threshold without calling cl::ParseCommandLineOptions() [or perhaps some ugly hacks that involve getting at and modifying the global state]. In addition to being awk...

Hi Dan, > This should still make it easy to write new unrolling passes with > custom heuristics, but it would also be more flexible for passes to > do unrolling in combination with other transformations. Agreed. To shed some light on my specific requirements, I am working with an architecture that has only limited support for loops and control flow. This means that loop unrolling is not