search for: npm

Hi all, I wanted to give a quick update on the status of NPM for the IR optimization pipeline and ask some questions. In the past I believe there were thoughts that NPM was basically ready because all of check-llvm and check-clang passed when -DENABLE_EXPERIMENTAL_NEW_PASS_MANAGER=ON was specified. But that CMake flag did not apply to opt and any tests runn...

After talking with some NPM people, I believe the ultimate goal after NPM is enabled by default is to only support `-passes=`, and remove support for `-foo-pass`. However, until NPM is enabled by default, we still want tests using opt to use the legacy PM by default. We could attempt to make `-passes=` work with the legacy PM...

(NPM: new pass manager; LPM: legacy pass manager) In a first quick experiment today I compared code-size of the LMP vs. the NMP for the CSiBE benchmark (and some other), and this shows code-size increases with the NPM that would probably be unacceptable for us. So, now I am wondering how/if we need to...

Hi, I have built dependent packages of nodejs010 and npm successfully using mock and copy these RPMS to our ISO, anaconada installer fails to install due to dependency errors: nodejs010-nodejs-are-we-there-yet-1.0.4-1.el7.centos.noarch requires nodejs010-npm(readable-stream) < 2 nodejs010-nodejs-cmd-shim-2.0.0-2.el7.centos.noarch requires nodejs010-n...

...020 12:49 PM > To: Chen, Yuanfang <Yuanfang.Chen at sony.com> > Cc: LLVM Developers' List <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Introducing classes for the codegen driven by > new pass manager > > While we're still working towards using NPM for optimizer pipeline by > default, we still don't have a machine pass interface and the corresponding > machine pass manager using NPM. The potential benefits using NPM aside, > this inhibits us from making any progress on deprecating LPM for the > codegen pipeline which blocks re...

...th impact to the project. -eric On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 3:15 PM Philip Reames via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > (I'm probably going to derail your thread, sorry about that.) > > I think at this point, we should just bite the bullet and make the switch > to NPM by default for Clang's optimization pipeline. Today. > > Why? Because many of our downstream consumers have already switched. > Google has. We (Azul) have. I think I've heard the same for a couple > other major contributors. Why does this matter? Testing. At the current &...

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 9:59 AM Roman Lebedev <lebedev.ri at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 7:48 PM Arthur Eubanks via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > After talking with some NPM people, I believe the ultimate goal after > NPM is enabled by default is to only support `-passes=`, and remove support > for `-foo-pass`. > Hm, is there any written rationale behind such a decision? > I would have thought that -passes= is the temporary solution, not the > other way...

Hi all, The current plan is to prioritize enabling the NPM as soon as possible, and that includes addressing any blockers that are known or arise. This means prioritizing those blockers over other LLVM work. The current umbrella bug is PR46649 <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46649>. Philip's point is spot on that we are deficient now in t...

(NPM: new pass manager; LPM: legacy pass manager) Hello, community While we're still working towards using NPM for optimizer pipeline by default, we still don't have a machine pass interface and the corresponding machine pass manager using NPM. The potential benefits using NPM aside, this inh...

Hi, As part of new pass manager work, I've been trying to get something like `opt -foo` working under the NPM, where `foo` is the name of a pass. In the past there's been no reason to keep the names of passes consistent between NPM and legacy PM. But now there is a reason to make them match, so that we don't have to touch every single test that uses `opt`. There are a couple of names that don'...

Hi, I have built successfully all the dependent packages of nodejs010 and npm. I have used following command:- *rpmbuild --define 'scl nodejs010' --bb SPEC/name_of_spec.spec* Following is the list of RPMs cloned and built from GIT:- nodejs010-2.1-5.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm nodejs010-http-parser-2.0-6.20121128gitcd01361.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm nodejs010-http-parser-deve...

Hello LLVM community, I was trying to port a target specific loop transformation pass (HexagonVectorLoopCarriedReusePass) to the New Pass Manager. However, I could not figure out a way to register this pass with opt. I can see that llvm/lib/Passes/PassRegistry.def is the registry for target independent passes. Can anyone point me to an example/API which can help me in registering this pass so

...are a few important IR-level passes that only run in the codegen pipeline, but are still nameable with opt to run individually for testing purposes. Switching over doesn't need to block on these passes being migrated. So I'm not sure this method of determining progress towards switching to NPM actually makes sense. E.g., looking at the first few entries on your list, amdgpu-lower-intrinsics and codegenprepare are codegen only. However, objc-arc is not -- that does really need to be ported. Then there's things like loop-unswitch -- the functionality is ported to NPM, but as a diffe...

...most > of the time for a revert of that commit. That's why I surprised that it > looked like we were not setting code-quality goals and requirements before > switching. And what I would like to ask here is to provide reasonable > enough time for people to look into switching to the NPM, to evaluate this, > and then file bugs under PR46649. Just collecting data, evaluating > problems, filings bugs can already time-consuming, and then I guess they > need fixing too. This also needs to fit in people's plans right now. > > But it sounds reasonable to me that this i...

...sing (hence opt-outs), but it is working quite well otherwise. > > Our current list of issues: > 1) Libsqlite still has a mysterious failure that we haven't been able to reduce well. > 2) https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42124 shows that inlining costs are a bit different under NPM. https://reviews.llvm.org/D63034 is one proposed patch for addressing this. > 3) libpdfium exposed a non-determinism issue with NPM where having the linux-libc-dev system package installed changes execution. We are still looking at why this happens. > 4) Sanitizer coverage information isn'...

On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 17:46, Philip Reames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > For our downstream usage, we've switched entirely to the new pass manager. We made the switch a couple of months ago. All of our testing is being done with the NPM, and we're about to start deleting (downstream) code which was only needed by the legacy pass manager. > > I believe several other major contributors are in the same state. We really need to get upstream switched over so that all of the community's testing efforts are aligned again....

Hmm it looks like getting NPM to work with opt is non-trivial. Only a small portion of the opt functionality works with NPM :( On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:36 PM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > Maybe you could change the default PM in opt and see what fails? > > --paulr > > > > *From...

...; > Our current list of issues: >> > > > 1) Libsqlite still has a mysterious failure that we haven't been able to reduce >> > well. >> > > > 2) https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42124 shows that inlining costs >> > are a bit different under NPM. https://reviews.llvm.org/D63034 is one proposed >> > patch for addressing this. >> > > > 3) libpdfium exposed a non-determinism issue with NPM where having the >> > linux-libc-dev system package installed changes execution. We are still looking >> > at why...

I had a chance to try -print-after-all with NPM. It seems like there's still no output for the passes before objc-arc-contract (which is basically what I saw before.) Does anyone else see this? Are we talking about the same thing? *** IR Dump After ObjC ARC contraction *** *** IR Dump After Pre-ISel Intrinsic Lowering *** *** IR Dump Afte...

Hi all, When writing new passes we currently have two pass manager interfaces to consider. In many cases we resort to implementing both interfaces because the NPM is not enabled by default while we want our pass to be enabled by default. It is my understanding that the new pass manager interface is going to replace the old one soon. However, it is not clear to me if anyone is actively working on it and if so what is the timeline. Does anyone have more infor...