search for: sanjoy

Apologies: didn't notice how old this thread is before replying. On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > Hi Vivek, > > [+CC Matthias, Quentin] > > Inter-procedural register allocation can be a big win, but my estimate > is that it will be challenging to complete within one summer unless > you're already familiar with LLVM&...

Hi Sanjoy, Reading through LoopDependenceAnalysis::analyseStrongSIV(), I noticed one problem and one confusion. My confusion related to your naming of the two instructions as A and B. It's consistent all through LoopDependenceAnalysis. I'd prefer something like source and destination, so I can keep...

...hich functions are processed) and a callgraph in the backend. So this might end up being more pass manager / infrastructure work than register allocation. I'd be happy to answer detail questions or give guidance on the register allocation aspects. - Matthias > On Mar 22, 2016, at 5:27 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > Apologies: didn't notice how old this thread is before replying. > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Sanjoy Das > <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: >> Hi Vivek, >> >> [+CC Matthias, Quen...

...ed on my previous code to calculate direction and distance vectors whenever possible (strong SIV, basically). I think the current code is much clearer and would like your opinions on it. I have attached the patch and also pushed to the github repo I mentioned [1]. Thanks! [1] https://github.com/sanjoy/llvm/tree/lda -- Sanjoy Das. http://playingwithpointers.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: lda.diff Type: text/x-patch Size: 35188 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120326/ab45b7ba/attachme...

Hi Sanjoy, Here's a version of Banerjee and Wolfe's Exact SIV test: https://sites.google.com/site/parallelizationforllvm/weak-siv-test It assumes you've already filtered out the easy cases handled by ZIV, strong SIV, etc. I'm not confident about my uses of APInt. If you have any comments, I...

Hi Félix, Sanjoy Das wrote: > Félix Cloutier via llvm-dev wrote: > > Assuming that this is a bug, what are the next steps? > > Looks like you already have a very small test case -- have you tried > sticking it in a debugger to see why SCCP thinks removing the call is > okay? > >...

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > Just as a reality check, I wrote up a demonstration where one link > order causes a SIGFPE and another doesn't (and the program is well > defined, as far as I can tell). All TUs are compiled with -O3. This is also > an instanc...

Gents, I spent some time reading over Sanjoy's patch for LoopDependenceAnalysis. Unfortunately, an early version of these notes escaped; this is the complete review. First off, I agree with his choice to implement the SIV tests. For scientific Fortran, the SIV (and the simpler ZIV) tests cover about 85% of the cases in practice. For C an...

Hi, Here is a preliminary (monolithic) version you can comment on. This is still buggy, however, and I'll be testing for and fixing bugs over the next few days. I've used your version of the strong siv test. Thanks! -- Sanjoy Das. http://playingwithpointers.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: patch.diff Type: application/octet-stream Size: 40632 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120412/261b2eb9/attachment.obj>

...t;=> false > > and I don't think you want to abandon the second rule just because x might be poison. Maybe we could define poison in such a way that it is safe to pretend it "is" false, as per our convenience. In this sense, could be defined to be very similar to undef. -- Sanjoy > > - Matthias > >> On Jan 29, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: >> >> One way around this is to say that there are some special >> instructions, icmp, sext and zext which produce a value solely >> composed of poiso...

...At least in C/C++ that's UB, yes. So you cannot map every turing machine to a valid C/C++ program then. :) Also, does this mean that "daemon" programs that run continuously till they're killed by the OS (using a mechanism that is not visible in C) are effectively undefined? -- Sanjoy > Some years ago there was a lot of discussion about this on the ML. Se > Nick's patch, for example: > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20100705/103670.html > The patch was eventually dropped, I don't recall why. I think it's fine to > assume...

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:24 AM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> wrote: > Hi Sanjoy, > > Your inputs really helped. > > Using “isImpliedCond”, able to relate and find the min for cases like: > > SCEV1: (-1 + (sext i32 %n.addr.058 to i64))<nsw> > SCEV2: 0 > Extra-Condition: (n.addr.058 > 7) > Result: ‘0’ (SCEV2) > > I have another case wher...

...e(1)* addrspace(1)* %dst) { entry: %src.cast = bitcast i8 addrspace(1)* addrspace(1)* %src to i8* addrspace(1)* %dst.cast = bitcast i8 addrspace(1)* addrspace(1)* %dst to i8* addrspace(1)* %val = load i8* addrspace(1)* %src.cast store i8* %val, i8* addrspace(1)* %dst.cast ret void } -- Sanjoy

Hi Wei, Wei Mi wrote: > Sanjoy and Andy, thanks a lot for your suggestions. > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Andrew Trick<atrick at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> On Aug 23, 2016, at 11:30 PM, Sanjoy Das<sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Wei, >>&...

Hi all, Our use case for LLVM requires us to parse the .eh_frame sections emitted by MCJIT (for callee-saved-register spill slots, amongst other things). Does it make sense to have an in-tree parser for .eh_frame, given that it will make such tasks a lot easier? -- Sanjoy

Hi Sanjoy, I reworked the code for analyzeStrongSIV to fix a couple of mistakes, plus squeeze all the advantage possible from the symbolic manipulation provided by the SCEVs. It's sketched out here: https://sites.google.com/site/parallelizationforllvm/strong-siv-test Does it makes sense to you? Thanks...

...s interested. -- Mehdi > So this might end up being more pass manager / infrastructure work than register allocation. > > I'd be happy to answer detail questions or give guidance on the register allocation aspects. > > - Matthias > >> On Mar 22, 2016, at 5:27 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: >> >> Apologies: didn't notice how old this thread is before replying. >> >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Sanjoy Das >> <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: >>> Hi Vivek, >>>...

...pproach will explicitly address the issue that we're using an N bit value to track 2^N+1 possibilities. And this is also a sanity check -- since the is-poison relation is clearly made up and does not *really exist*, if we cannot prove (2) then we did something wrong in specifying step (1). -- Sanjoy On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:01 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de> wrote: >> But >> (Poison > INT_MAX) <=> poison >> contradicts >> (X > INT_MAX) <=&...

...he reply! > Would it be possible for you to implement this? I don't have cycles for this right now, but if you file a bug I can give this a shot when I have time later. Even in the best case this will have to at least wait until end of April because I'm leaving for a vacation soon. -- Sanjoy > > You know the codebase better than I do. > > Thanks, > Pankaj > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sanjoy Das [mailto:sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 1:34 PM > To: Chawla, Pankaj <pankaj.chawla at intel.com> > Cc: Maxim...

> On Jun 11, 2015, at 12:48 AM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com <mailto:anemet at apple.com>> wrote: >> >>> On Jun 10, 2015, at 11:44 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: >&gt...