Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "stmt_for_inc".
Did you mean:
stmt_for_inc29
2015 Sep 23
4
Find loops in LLVM bytecode
Hi,
I want to find simple loops in LLVM bytecode, and extract the basic
information of the loop.
For example:
for (i=0; i<1000; i++)
sum += i;
I want to extract the bound [0, 1000), the loop variable "i" and the
loop body (sum += i).
What should I do?
I read the LLVM API document, and find some useful classes like "Loop",
"LoopInfo".
But I do
2013 May 03
2
[LLVMdev] [Polly] GSoC Proposal: Reducing LLVM-Polly Compiling overhead
...32) {
for (c5=c2;c5<=c2+31;c5++) {
for (c6=c3;c6<=c3+31;c6++) {
for (c7=c4;c7<=c4+31;c7++) {
Stmt_for_body8(c5,c6,c7);
}
}
}
}
}
}
:: polybench_flush_cache : for.inc => for.end
for (c1=0;c1<=4194559;c1++) {
Stmt_for_inc(c1);
}
As a first step, we should ensure that Polly is fast for these flags. As
subsequent steps we should then ensure that the absence of these flags
does not increase compile-time.
> Table 3 and table 4 show the compile-time overhead of top 15 passes in
> polly-opt. we first generate LLVM...
2013 May 03
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] GSoC Proposal: Reducing LLVM-Polly Compiling overhead
Dear Tobias,
Thank you very much for your very helpful advice.
Yes, -debug-pass and -time-passes are two very useful and powerful options when evaluating the compile-time of each compiler pass. They are exactly what I need! With these options, I can step into details of the compile-time overhead of each pass. I have finished some preliminary testing based on two randomly selected files from
2013 May 02
2
[LLVMdev] [Polly] GSoC Proposal: Reducing LLVM-Polly Compiling overhead
On 04/30/2013 04:13 PM, Star Tan wrote:
> Hi all,
[...]
> How could I find out where the time is spent on between two adjacent Polly passes? Can anyone give me some advice?
Hi Star Tan,
I propose to do the performance analysis using the 'opt' tool and
optimizing LLVM-IR, instead of running it from within clang. For the
'opt' tool there are two commands that should help
2013 May 03
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] GSoC Proposal: Reducing LLVM-Polly Compiling overhead
...; for (c6=c3;c6<=c3+31;c6++) {
> for (c7=c4;c7<=c4+31;c7++) {
> Stmt_for_body8(c5,c6,c7);
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
>}
>:: polybench_flush_cache : for.inc => for.end
>for (c1=0;c1<=4194559;c1++) {
> Stmt_for_inc(c1);
>}
>
>As a first step, we should ensure that Polly is fast for these flags. As
>subsequent steps we should then ensure that the absence of these flags
>does not increase compile-time.
Thanks for your advice. I will investigate more flags and enrich the content of table 1 and tab...