search for: preoptimize

On 10/07/2011 03:43 PM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: > 2011/10/7 Marcello Maggioni<hayarms at gmail.com>: >> Hi, >> >> for example this loop: >> >> #include<stdio.h> >> >> int main() >> { >> int A[1024]; >> int j, k=10; >> for (j = 1; j< 1024; j++) >> A[j] =

I add also the output of these commands: [hades at artemis examples]$ ./compile_ex.sh super_simple_loop Printing analysis 'Polly - Detect Scops in functions' for function 'main': [hades at artemis examples]$ modifying it in : #include <stdio.h> int main() { int A[1024]; int j, k=10; for (j = 0; j < 1024; j++) A[j] = k;

Hi Tobias, thanks for the answer. I'll try to give a look to the code you pointed me to , and I'll try to make the modification myself. I'm new to LLVM and Polly, but the code of both seem clean and understandable, so I hope to be able to do it myself. In case I'll ask here for support :) Marcello 2011/10/1 Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es>: > On 10/01/2011 03:26

I was trying the new feature you introduce about printing out the graphs, so I updated my version of llvm/clang/polly synchronizing them to the last version, but I get this error launching clang (also , I recently switched to MacOS X for development): $ clang not_so_simple_loop.c -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang ${PATH_TO_POLLY_LIB}/LLVMPolly.dylib -mllvm -enable-polly-viewer -mllvm -enable-iv-rewrite

...ory usage is issue on servers. Mongrel process is at least 40Meg each. Some extreme cases are above 140Meg. Memory is cheap. Processor usage has not been a factor. All boxes are dual processor quad core AMDs and they are sleeping. 12. Don’t worry about it until it is becoming a problem! Don’t preoptimize. 13. pennyarcade is a rail sit and it is huge. 14. Amount of silicon used for rails is 30% to 5x more than other machines typically used – but so what? 15. Statement: In the end DB limits you, not the application. Lack of multithreading is raised as a question Case study: 1. Java vs Ruby...

At 2013-08-16 12:44:02,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >Hi, > >I tried to reproduce your findings, but could not do so. Sorry, I did not put all code in my previous email because the code seems a little too long and complicated. You can refer to the detailed C code and LLVM IR code on http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16843 There are four attachments

On 08/15/2013 03:32 AM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi all, Hi, I tried to reproduce your findings, but could not do so. > I have investigated the 6X extra compile-time overhead when Polly compiles the simple nestedloop benchmark in LLVM-testsuite. (http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/31?compare_to=28&baseline=28). Preliminary results show that such compile-time overhead is resulted by

On 08/16/2013 02:42 AM, Star Tan wrote: > At 2013-08-16 12:44:02,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I tried to reproduce your findings, but could not do so. > > > Sorry, I did not put all code in my previous email because the code seems a little too long and complicated. > You can refer to the detailed C code and LLVM IR

Hi all, I have investigated the 6X extra compile-time overhead when Polly compiles the simple nestedloop benchmark in LLVM-testsuite. (http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/31?compare_to=28&baseline=28). Preliminary results show that such compile-time overhead is resulted by the complicated polly-dependence analysis. However, the key seems to be the polly-prepare pass, which introduces