search for: schedboundari

Hi to everyone, while working with the machine scheduler for a personal project, I came up with the necessity of inserting a backup boundary in the MachineSchedulerStrategy -- specifically, the PostGenericScheduler -- to hold a copy the scheduler's state, in order to implement a really trivial (and really inefficient) backtracking mechanism. This approach leads to a subtle "segmentation

Hi All, I have tried to build llvm tip as following: cmake -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS:STRING="-DLLVM_ENABLE_DUMP" -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo ../llvm After running 'make', I have got error messages like below. llvm/lib/CodeGen/MachineRegisterInfo.cpp:462:67: error: no ‘void llvm::MachineRegisterInfo::dumpUses(unsigned int) const’ member function declared in class

> On Apr 7, 2017, at 4:45 PM, Matthias Braun via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I think the idea is to keep NDEBUG out of headers when possible. So I think this should better be something like: > > -#ifndef NDEBUG > void dumpUses(unsigned RegNo) const; > -#endif > > to be inline with various other dumpers (like MachineInstr::dump(),

Presently several of our headers have definitions like: #if !defined(NDEBUG) || defined(LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP) void dump() const; #endif Would it make sense to modify the build system to define LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP in config.h on debug builds? Then we could wrap dump methods just based on LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP instead of two variables. -Chris > On Apr 10, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev

> On Apr 10, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com> wrote: > > The situation is not consistent. Yes there are several places where we have the #if in the headers however there are far more cases where it is not. Some points here: > > - This whole LLVM_DUMP_FUNCTION/LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP is about enabling the linker to strip (or not strip) the dumping function in

Hi Matthias, >Jingu: Why do you even want a configuration that has LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP but does not have asserts enabled at the same time? My colleague and I am doing custom project using clang/llvm. We have always wanted to use the IR Value's dump() to check our implementation correctly with Debug, Release and another builds. We thought the LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP is for it. If Chris fixes

Hi Andrew, I seem to be making good progress on the P5600 scheduler using the new machine model but I've got a few questions about it. How would you represent an instruction that splits into two micro-ops and is dispatched to two different reservation stations? For example, I have two reservation stations (AGQ and FPQ). An FPU load instruction is split into a load micro-op which is

On Jul 22, 2013, at 11:50 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm working on defining a SchedMachineModel for the Southern Islands > family of GPUs, and I have two questions related to the > MachineScheduler. > > 1. I have a resource that can process 15 instructions at the same time. > In the TableGen definitions, should I do: > > def

Hi, I'm working on defining a SchedMachineModel for the Southern Islands family of GPUs, and I have two questions related to the MachineScheduler. 1. I have a resource that can process 15 instructions at the same time. In the TableGen definitions, should I do: def HWVMEM : ProcResource<15>; or let BufferSize = 15 in { def HWVMEM : ProcResource<1>; } 2. Southern Islands has

> > Of course, you want to duplicate as little of the generic scheduling logic > as you can. So I think the challenge is how to expose the > generic scheduler's functionality as a base class or composition of > utilities so that defining your strategy doesn't require too much > copy-paste. ​Isn't GCNMaxOccupancySchedStrategy [1] already an example on using

From: Andrew Trick [mailto:atrick at apple.com] Sent: 24 January 2014 21:52 To: Daniel Sanders Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List (llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu) Subject: Re: New machine model questions On Jan 24, 2014, at 2:21 AM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com<mailto:Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com>> wrote: Hi Andrew, I seem to be making good progress on the P5600 scheduler

> On Aug 3, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote: > > Hey Tom, > > I’m not a regular user of llvm-config, but this sounds completely right to me, and it would be a significant improvement over what we have now. > > The only question I want to raise is, what about NDEBUG? There are headers that conditionalize on NDEBUG, which could lead to ABI