Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "shouldignoreforpipelining".
2020 Jun 01
2
Machinepipeliner interface. shouldIgnoreForPipelining, actually not ignoring.
Hi all,
I think there is a mistake in the machinepipeliner interface. In the
TargetInstrInfo.h in the class PipelinerLoopInfo there is a function
"bool shouldIgnoreForPipelining(const MachineInstr *MI)". The
description says that if this function returns true for a given
MachineInstr it will not be pipelined.
However in reality it is not ignored and is being considered for
pipelining. I implemented this function in my own backend, and put an
instruction there tha...
2020 Sep 02
2
[EXTERNAL] Re: Machinepipeliner interface. shouldIgnoreForPipelining, actually not ignoring.
...I’m missing?
J.B. Nagurne
Code Generation
Texas Instruments
From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Jinsong Ji via llvm-dev
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 2:58 PM
To: Sander
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [llvm-dev] Machinepipeliner interface. shouldIgnoreForPipelining, actually not ignoring.
Hi Sander:
It may be confusing, but it is not a bug.
And you are right, if you are using the in-tree machinepipeliner, it won't have any effects,
because there is NO In tree reference of this API at all.
You can see the comments when James introduced this API in http...
2020 Sep 09
2
[EXTERNAL] RE: Machinepipeliner interface. shouldIgnoreForPipelining, actually not ignoring.
...>
>
>
> *From:* James Molloy [mailto:jmolloy at google.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, September 7, 2020 1:49 AM
> *To:* Nagurne, James
> *Cc:* Jinsong Ji; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Sander; Hendrik Greving
> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: [llvm-dev] Machinepipeliner interface.
> shouldIgnoreForPipelining, actually not ignoring.
>
>
>
> Hi James,
>
>
>
> Having not worked on this for circa one year I've gone and refreshed my
> memory.
>
>
>
> We have a pretty capable implementation of swing modulo scheduling
> downstream, distinct from the MachinePipelin...
2020 Sep 03
1
[EXTERNAL] RE: Machinepipeliner interface. shouldIgnoreForPipelining, actually not ignoring.
...>
> JB
>
>
>
> *From:* Jinsong Ji [mailto:jji at us.ibm.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 3, 2020 10:03 AM
> *To:* Nagurne, James; jmolloy at google.com
> *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Sander
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [llvm-dev] Machinepipeliner interface.
> shouldIgnoreForPipelining, actually not ignoring.
>
>
>
> As I mentioned before,
> this API was introduced by James, mostly for his out-of-tree
> implementations,
> the in tree implementation NEVER implement it.
>
> If it is causing confusion, I think we have two choices:
> 1. See whether James...
2020 Sep 07
2
[EXTERNAL] RE: Machinepipeliner interface. shouldIgnoreForPipelining, actually not ignoring.
...e" and "ModuloScheduleExpander" classes, which we use
downstream too (we actually have a minor variant, where we use
predication for the prolog and epilog). However, the code that analyzes
loops and determines a good schedule is completely custom. It is in this
code that we use "shouldIgnoreForPipelining".
All of this code is designed to go upstream. There is nothing stopping us
putting it upstream (modulo some non-upstreamable features that may have
crept in, but those can be removed). The major hurdle is that the target
architecture is NOT upstream, and no existing upstream architecture loo...