search for: simtes

Hi, there I am quite sure there is an easy answer to this, but I am unsure how to gather a bunch of t-statistics in an organized format. I am trying to generate a list of t-statistics for a randomization routine. If I try to collect a bunch of t-statistics from a run, this is what happens: > M <- 10 ; simt <- NULL > for(i in 1:M) + { + perm<-sample(site,replace=F) + +

Below is a proposal for a new "convergent" intrinsic attribute and MachineInstr property, needed for correctly modeling many SPMD/SIMT programming models in LLVM. Comments and feedback welcome. —Owen In order to make LLVM more suitable for programming models variously called SPMD and SIMT, we would like to propose a new intrinsic and MachineInstr annotation called

I would like to start by thanking every developer who has contributed to LLVM for releasing such a high quality project. It has been incredibly valuable to several projects that I have worked on. My name is Gregory Diamos, I am a PhD student at Georgia Tech working on Ocelot (http://code.google.com/p/gpuocelot/). Ocelot is a dynamic binary translator from PTX (a virtual instruction set used by

Why is this a regalloc problem? I assume in the example below the "r0" is somehow forced by the ABI? Because otherwise moving the texture2d operation into the branch wouldn't matter as long as we assign different registers to the two branches and use a technique like lib/Target/R600/SIFixSGPRLiveRanges.cpp. - Matthias > On May 13, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at

Hi Jingyue, Convergent is not intended to prevent inlining. It’s tricky to formalize this inter-procedurally, but the intended interpretation is that a convergent operation cannot be move either into or out of a conditionally executed region. Normal inlining would not violate that. I would imagine that it would make sense to use a combination of convergent and noduplicate for barrier-like

Hi Mehdi, My reading of it is that if you have a convergent instruction A, it is legal to duplicate it to instruction B if (assuming B is after A in program flow) A dominates B and B post-dominates A. James On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 at 08:32 Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Aug 13, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Owen Anderson via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at

Hi all, Some brain-storming on an issue with SPMD/SIMT backend support where I think some additional IR attributes would be useful. Sorry for the somewhat long mail; the short version of my current thinking is that I would like to have the following: 1) convergent: a call to a function with this attribute cannot be moved to have additional control dependencies; i.e., moving it from A to B is

On 24.10.2016 21:54, Mehdi Amini wrote: >> On Oct 24, 2016, at 12:38 PM, Nicolai Hähnle via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Some brain-storming on an issue with SPMD/SIMT backend support where I think some additional IR attributes would be useful. Sorry for the somewhat long mail; the short version of my current thinking is that I would like to have the following:

Hi Jingyue, I consider it a very important element of the design of convergent that it does not require baseline LLVM to contain a definition of uniformity, which would itself pull in a definition of SIMT/SPMD, warps, threads, etc. The intention is that it should be a conservative (but hopefully not too conservative) approximation, and that implementations of specific GPU programming models

Hi all, On 12/13/2011 10:50 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > You mean having no calling convention for device functions, and a new, common > calling convention for kernels? I think this might make sense. One major issue with OpenCL C (and I suppose CUDA) kernels some fail to see is that the functions are "directly callable" (just by choosing a correct the calling convention) in

On 25.10.2016 16:28, Nicolai Hähnle wrote: > But I fear that this path leads to eternal fuzziness. Let me try a > completely different approach to define what we need by augmenting the > semantics of IR with "divergence tokens". In addition to its usual > value, every IR value carries a "divergence set" of divergence tokens. > > The basic rule is: the

> On Oct 24, 2016, at 4:15 PM, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 25.10.2016 01:11, Nicolai Hähnle wrote: >> On 24.10.2016 21:54, Mehdi Amini wrote: >>>> On Oct 24, 2016, at 12:38 PM, Nicolai Hähnle via llvm-dev >>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>> Some brain-storming on an issue with SPMD/SIMT backend

2011/12/14 Pekka Jääskeläinen <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> > Hi all, > > On 12/13/2011 10:50 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > > You mean having no calling convention for device functions, and a new, > common > > calling convention for kernels? > > I think this might make sense. > To be clear, I do like the idea of using the default calling convention for

On 12/14/2011 02:41 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > I would favor calling conventions over metadata for the simple reason > that this maps more cleanly to the device model. Device and kernel > functions are represented differently in PTX, including (sometimes) the > way parameters are passed. For the record, marking the kernels with "calling conventions" instead of metadata

(I work on CUDA / PTX.) For one thing I'm in favor of having fewer annotations rather than more, so if we can do this in a reasonable way without introducing the notion of co-convergent calls, I think that would be a win. The one convergent annotation is difficult enough for the GPU folks to grok and then keep in cache, and everyone who works on llvm has to pay the cost of keeping their

*Hi, I am considering a language extension to Clang for optimizing GPU programs. This extension will allow the compiler to use different optimization strategies for divergent and non-divergent branches (to be explained below). We have observed significant performance gain by leveraging this proposed extension, so I want to discuss it here to see how the community likes/dislikes the idea. I will

2011/12/14 Pekka Jääskeläinen <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> > On 12/14/2011 02:41 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > >> I would favor calling conventions over metadata for the simple reason >> that this maps more cleanly to the device model. Device and kernel >> functions are represented differently in PTX, including (sometimes) the >> way parameters are passed.

In our experience, as Owen also suggests, a pragma or a language extension can be avoided by a combination of static and dynamic analysis. We prefer this approach in our compiler ;) Regards, Vinod On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote: > Hi Jingyue, > > Have you considered using dynamic uniformity checks? In my experience you > can

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com>wrote: > ** ** > > *From:* Justin Holewinski [mailto:justin.holewinski at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 13, 2011 10:50 AM > > *To:* Villmow, Micah > *Cc:* LLVM Developers Mailing List > *Subject:* Re: [LLVMdev] Changes to the PTX calling conventions**** > > ** ** > > On

On 01/25/2013 09:56 AM, Nadav Rotem wrote: > Thanks for checking the Loop Vectorizer, I am interested in hearing your > feedback. The Loop Vectorizer does not fit here. OpenCL vectorization is > completely different because the language itself is data-parallel. You > don't need all of the legality checks that the loop vectorizer has. I'm aware of this and it was my point in