search for: riddleriver

...Thanks for sharing it though! On 3/31/20 2:16 PM, River Riddle via llvm-dev wrote: > For those interested I've uploaded to the chrome store to make installs > easier. An install link is now included on the repo. > > -- River > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020, 1:44 PM River Riddle <riddleriver at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Recently I've had some extra time on my hands, so I spent part of the >> weekend coding up a simple chrome extension to monitor the status of code >> reviews on the LLVM phabricator instance. This extension is inspired...

2017-07-24 16:14 GMT-07:00 Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > Hi River, > > On Jul 24, 2017, at 2:36 PM, River Riddle <riddleriver at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Quentin, > I appreciate the feedback. When I reference the cost of Target Hooks it's > mainly for maintainability and cost on a target author. We want to keep the > intrusion into target information minimized. The heuristics used for the > outli...

...: > > On Jul 25, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2017-07-24 16:14 GMT-07:00 Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > >> Hi River, >> >> On Jul 24, 2017, at 2:36 PM, River Riddle <riddleriver at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Quentin, >> I appreciate the feedback. When I reference the cost of Target Hooks >> it's mainly for maintainability and cost on a target author. We want to >> keep the intrusion into target information minimized. The heuristics use...

...won’t oppose. I feel sad we have to split our effort on outlining technology, but I certainly don’t pretend to know what is best! The bottom line is if people are happy with that going in, the conversation on the details can continue in parallel. > On Jul 24, 2017, at 4:56 PM, River Riddle <riddleriver at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey Quentin, > Sorry I missed the last question. Currently it doesn't do continual outlining, but it's definitely a possibility. Ok, that means we probably won’t have the very bad runtime problems I had in mind with adding a lot of indirections. &gt...

Hi all, Recently I've had some extra time on my hands, so I spent part of the weekend coding up a simple chrome extension to monitor the status of code reviews on the LLVM phabricator instance. This extension is inspired by some other review monitoring tools that I've used in the past. It allows for monitoring revisions that a user needs to review, revisions by the user that need to be

...n why I am for this being at the IR level is not because I want to split up the technical effort, but combine it. Thanks, River Riddle On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com> wrote: > Hi River, > > On Jul 24, 2017, at 2:36 PM, River Riddle <riddleriver at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Quentin, > I appreciate the feedback. When I reference the cost of Target Hooks it's > mainly for maintainability and cost on a target author. We want to keep the > intrusion into target information minimized. The heuristics used for the > outli...

Hi Andrey, Questions and feedback are very much welcome. - The explanation as to why the improvements can vary between the IR and MIR outliner mainly boil down to the level of abstraction that each are working at. The MIR level has very accurate heuristics and is effectively the last post ISel target independent code gen pass. The IR outliner on the other hand has more estimation in the cost

...s.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> Hi River, >> >>> On Jul 24, 2017, at 2:36 PM, River Riddle <riddleriver at gmail.com <mailto:riddleriver at gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Quentin, >>> I appreciate the feedback. When I reference the cost of Target Hooks it's mainly for maintainability and cost on a target author. We want to keep the intrusion into target inform...

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi River, > > On Jul 24, 2017, at 2:36 PM, River Riddle <riddleriver at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Quentin, > I appreciate the feedback. When I reference the cost of Target Hooks it's > mainly for maintainability and cost on a target author. We want to keep the > intrusion into target information minimized. The heuristics used for the > outli...

Hi Guillaume, Thanks for the RFC. I'm generally +1 on the concept. Making bit field manipulation easier seems like a good overall goal given its prevalence in LLVM. As for the syntax, I tend to prefer that we don't pollute the namespace. Have you considered pushing the methods into the Bitfield class? Maybe something like: ``` uint8_t Storage = 0; using Amount =

Hi Quentin, I appreciate the feedback. When I reference the cost of Target Hooks it's mainly for maintainability and cost on a target author. We want to keep the intrusion into target information minimized. The heuristics used for the outliner are the same used by any other IR level pass seeking target information, i.e TTI for the most part. I can see where you are coming from with

> On Sep 21, 2017, at 8:02 PM, River Riddle <riddleriver at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey Gerolf, > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner <ghoflehner at apple.com <mailto:ghoflehner at apple.com>> wrote: > In general I would love to see an outliner at the IR level also. But rather than a comparison vs. the machin...

Hey Gerolf, On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner <ghoflehner at apple.com> wrote: > In general I would love to see an outliner at the IR level also. But > rather than a comparison vs. the machine outliner I would like to learn > more about how the core data structures between the outliners will be > shared. > The only structure that needs to be shared is a

Hi Evgeny, I know of the current machine outliner in LLVM. If you look in the "More detailed performance data" in the end section it includes performance comparisons to the machine outliner. As for the algorithmic approach they are kind of similar. Machine Outliner: - Builds a suffix tree based on identical equivalence between machine instrs. - Uses target specific cost model for

...from the MachineOutliner though, since it’s already been in tree for a while and has been tested quite a bit. - Jessica > On Sep 26, 2017, at 5:24 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> On Sep 21, 2017, at 8:02 PM, River Riddle <riddleriver at gmail.com <mailto:riddleriver at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Hey Gerolf, >> >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner <ghoflehner at apple.com <mailto:ghoflehner at apple.com>> wrote: >> In general I would love to see an outliner at th...

Hi Jessica, The comparison to the inliner is an interesting one but we think it's important to note the difference in the use of heuristics. The inliner is juggling many different tasks at the same time, execution speed, code size, etc. which can cause the parameters to be very sensitive depending on the benchmark/platform/etc. The outliners heuristics are focused solely on the potential code

> > > > Also as a side note, I think in the original MachineOutliner RFC thread > there was some confusion as to whether it was possible to solve the code > folding outlining problem exactly as a graph problem on SSA using standard > value numbering algorithms in polynomial time. > > I can elaborate further, but > 1. it is easy to see that you can map an arbitrary

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:14 PM, River Riddle via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hey Graham, > I worked on pretty much this exact thing last year. I did something > similar to what you described, I traversed the CFG and built potentially > profitable regions from any given valid start node. At that point there > were several road blocks that prevented it