search for: osr

...oop infrastructure for CFG loops. This algorithm finds loops in the data flow (more precisely: strongly-connected components in the SSA-graph), e.g. bb5: %20 = add nsw i32 %i.0, 1 br label %bb6 bb6: %i.0 = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %20, %bb5 ] There is a data flow loop between %20 and %i.0. The OSR paper has a nice figure showing data flow loops. Here is small excerpt from the OSR paper: "OSR is driven by a simple depth-first search of the SSA-graph, using Tarjan’s strongly-connected component finder. The SCC-finder lets OSR discover induction variables in topological order and proc...

...inds loops in > the data flow (more precisely: strongly-connected components in the > SSA-graph), e.g. > > bb5: > %20 = add nsw i32 %i.0, 1 > br label %bb6 > > bb6: > %i.0 = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %20, %bb5 ] > > There is a data flow loop between %20 and %i.0. The OSR paper has a nice > figure showing data flow loops. > > Here is small excerpt from the OSR paper: > > "OSR is driven by a simple depth-first search of the SSA-graph, using > Tarjan’s strongly-connected component finder. The SCC-finder lets OSR > discover induction variables...

Eli Friedman <eli.friedman <at> gmail.com> writes: > >> > I did not mention in the original email (and should have) that OSR needs > >> > -instcombine to be run after it for cleanup. Also -licm, -reassociate, -gvn > >> > and -sccp can be enabling optimizations for OSR. > >> > >> Hmm... perhaps that could be partially fixed using the InstSimplify > >> infrastructure...

On 10/29/10 1:26 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > Sure, but you know which induction variables you created; you can just > zap the unused ones at the end of the pass, no? This is feasible. We would have to collect more information during OSR proper pass and add logic to cleanup at the end. >> FWIW I noticed that other optimizations (as seen in StandardPasses.h) are >> followed by -instcombine for cleanup. I thought requiring or suggesting >> running >> -instcombine after -osr would be SOP. > > Strength r...

Eli Friedman <eli.friedman <at> gmail.com> writes: > > Empirically the OSR optimization is compile-time faster than LSR. I have > > also noticed that OSR has more "analysis" requirements: Induction Variable > > User, Natural Loop Information, Canonicalize natural loops, and Scalar > > Evolution Analysis. Both OSR and LSR require the Dominator T...

> > A big downside of the current LSR algorithm is it's slow. I had initially > hoped that some of the heuristics would protect it better, but the problem > is > more complex than I had expected. I haven't done any measurements, > but it's likely that OSR is faster, which may interest some people > regardless > of how the output compares. > A few years ago, I implemented OSR (with some slight modifications) in GCC, though it was never committed to mainline (it's on a branch somewhere) It was significantly faster than ivopts (which doe...

...t 29, 2010, at 12:20 PM, Brian West wrote: > On 10/29/10 1:26 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> Sure, but you know which induction variables you created; you can just >> zap the unused ones at the end of the pass, no? > This is feasible. We would have to collect more information during OSR > proper pass and add logic to cleanup at the end. > >>> FWIW I noticed that other optimizations (as seen in StandardPasses.h) are >>> followed by -instcombine for cleanup. I thought requiring or suggesting >>> running >>> -instcombine after -osr would be...

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Brian West <bnwest at rice.edu> wrote: > Eli Friedman <eli.friedman <at> gmail.com> writes: >> >> > I did not mention in the original email (and should have) that OSR >> >> > needs >> >> > -instcombine to be run after it for cleanup. Also -licm, >> >> > -reassociate, -gvn >> >> > and -sccp can be enabling optimizations for OSR. >> >> >> >> Hmm... perhaps that could be partially f...

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Brian West <bnwest at rice.edu> wrote: > Here is the patch for the new Operator Strength Reduction optimization > pass that I have written.  The bulk of the code is in > > lib/Transforms/Scalar/OperatorStrengthReduce.cpp > > The algorithm finds reduction opportunities in both array accesses and > explicit multiplications within loops.

...A big downside of the current LSR algorithm is it's slow. I had > initially > hoped that some of the heuristics would protect it better, but the > problem is > more complex than I had expected. I haven't done any measurements, > but it's likely that OSR is faster, which may interest some people > regardless > of how the output compares. > > > There is one thing both the original paper, the original MSCP > implementation did (too bad the links to this point to ftp.cs.rice.edu > <http://ftp.cs.rice.edu>, which no...

...the first step is to send a patch adding your pass (and hopefully the > associated documentation!) to LLVM to the mailing list, so that others > can test and study your code. > > Ciao, > > Duncan. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: osr.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 81300 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20101027/faef5b6d/attachment.obj>

...we encourage contribution, we typically don't commit new passes unless it > introduce new functionalities that have active clients. It would also help if you provide us with compile > time numbers. > > Evan Evan, Let's restart this conversation ... I propose that I test OSR versus LSR compile time performance via opt shell.ll -mem2reg -licm -osr -instcombine -stats -time-passes -disable-output and opt shell.ll -mem2reg -licm -loop-reduce -instcombine -stats -time-passes -disable-output Caveats which may skew any compile time testing: 1. LST is target d...

Downloaded Samba 2.2.8a and loaded into a Samba directory on UNIX 5.0.6 OSR system. Installed gcc compiler and patches as recommended from gcc.gnu.org. Went back to Samba directory and ran ./configure Upon executing ./configure The following message was written to the config.log file: This file contains any messages produced by compilers while running configure, to a...

...A big downside of the current LSR algorithm is it's slow. I had >> initially >> hoped that some of the heuristics would protect it better, but the problem >> is >> more complex than I had expected. I haven't done any measurements, >> but it's likely that OSR is faster, which may interest some people >> regardless >> of how the output compares. >> > > There is one thing both the original paper, the original MSCP > implementation did (too bad the links to this point to ftp.cs.rice.edu, > which no longer works, the web files...

Hi, openssh_cvs as of today, SCO Open Server 3.0, socklen_t this typedef doesn't exist on SCO OSR 3, and "configure" properly detects this, leading to /* #undef HAVE_SOCKLEN_T */ in config.h. Problem: I can't find any place where this is actually being used? I'd expect something like #ifndef HAVE_SOCKLEN_T typdef int socklen_t; #endif ("int" is what the releva...

...> PPP-connected Win95 PCs. Our servers are all SAMBA, no NT here :-) > The Win95s have WINS-server defined correctly in the network > setup (checked by running winipcfg). We wait a couple of > minutes after establishing PPP-connection, then try to > browse. Now, some Win95s (my OSR2.1, for example :-) browse > without problems, but others with a supposedly similar > setup cannot browse. Is the problem with older Win95 > versions, or something entirely different ? Note that > we are all dialing in to the same IBM-8235 router, so > everything ought to be the sa...

In NT Explorer, my 9GB usr shares show up as 4GB. Any suggestions? Doug Smith

...s currently running 2.6.32-71.29.1.el6.x86_64 and I am considering trying vanilla kernel build to see if that corrects the issues. The hardware is HP DL145G3, and we have several other (non-cPanel) servers that are identical running CentOS 6.0 without issue. Any ideas? Thank you, -- James Shupe, OSRE developer/ engineer BSD/ Linux support & hosting jshupe at osre.org | www.osre.org O 9032530140 | F 9032530150 | M 9035223425 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digita...

> On Feb 11, 2016, at 12:43 AM, via llvm-dev <Alexander G. Riccio> wrote: > > I don’t think that we can agree to abstract code guidelines without knowing what it means in practice for the codebase. If you’re interested in this, please include a diff that shows the impact to the headers, and we should also measure what happens to the performance of the generated compiler. > >

I know syslinux supports FAT16 and works very well, but how about FAT32? Does syslinux support FAT32? If so, which version? eg., 3.11 and above Thanks!