search for: tanmx_star

...the purpose of the code preparation passes that polly intentionally schedules for the data dependence analysis. If you remove the data references before polly runs, you would miss them in the dependence graph: that could lead to incorrect transforms. On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Star Tan <tanmx_star at yeah.net> wrote: > Hi Sebpop, > > Thanks for your explanation. > > I noticed that Polly would finally run the SROA pass to transform these > load/store instructions into scalar operations. Is it possible to run such > a pass before polly-dependence analysis? > > St...

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Star Tan <tanmx_star at yeah.net> wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > Yes, you have pointed an important reason. If we comment this source code > you have listed, then the compile-time overhead for oggenc*8.ll can be > reduced from 40.5261 ( 51.2%) to 20.3100 ( 35.7%). > > I just sent another mail to exp...

...ntroducing these loads and stores. >These are prepasses that polly runs prior to building the dependence graph >to transform scalar dependences into data dependences. >Ether was working on eliminating the rewrite of scalar dependences. > >On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Star Tan <tanmx_star at yeah.net> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I have investigated the 6X extra compile-time overhead when Polly compiles >> the simple nestedloop benchmark in LLVM-testsuite. >> (http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/31?compare_to=28&baseline=28). >> Prelimina...

...m/tanstar/5441808 or on https://gist.github.com/tanstar/5441808/raw/c041e001300e3502403eb4071e9556a6eb2b7fd5/%5BGSoc2013%5D%5BLLVM-Polly%5D+Reducing+Polly+Compiling+Overhead I would submit the proposal in recent days. Any comments or advice would be appreciated. Thank you! At 2013-04-26 11:08:02,tanmx_star <tanmx_star at yeah.net> wrote: >Hi all, > >I have updated my GSoS proposal: "FastPolly: Reducing LLVM-Polly Compiling overhead" (https://gist.github.com/tanstar/5441808). I think the pass ordering problem you discussed early can be also investigated in this project! >...

...is not turned on: >if you remember, I have already sent a patch to conditionally execute this code >in a DEBUG() stmt. You rejected that patch because it would not work for >other reporting tools -polly-show or some other flags. > > >On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Star Tan <tanmx_star at yeah.net> wrote: >> >> At 2013-07-14 13:20:42,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >>>On 07/13/2013 09:18 PM, Star Tan wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> At 2013-07-14 02:30:07,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at gross...

...pendent blocks are introducing these loads and stores. These are prepasses that polly runs prior to building the dependence graph to transform scalar dependences into data dependences. Ether was working on eliminating the rewrite of scalar dependences. On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Star Tan <tanmx_star at yeah.net> wrote: > Hi all, > > I have investigated the 6X extra compile-time overhead when Polly compiles > the simple nestedloop benchmark in LLVM-testsuite. > (http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/31?compare_to=28&baseline=28). > Preliminary results show that suc...

...ll optional canonicalization passes are removed. As a simple informal conclusion, I think we should revise Polly's canonicalization passes. At least we should consider removing the first "InstructionCombining" pass! Best, Star Tan At 2013-09-13 12:46:33,"Star Tan" <tanmx_star at yeah.net> wrote: At 2013-09-09 13:07:07,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 09/09/2013 05:18 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> >> At 2013-09-09 05:52:35,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> >>> On 09/08/2013 08:0...

...es to OS even when debug is not turned on: if you remember, I have already sent a patch to conditionally execute this code in a DEBUG() stmt. You rejected that patch because it would not work for other reporting tools -polly-show or some other flags. On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Star Tan <tanmx_star at yeah.net> wrote: > > At 2013-07-14 13:20:42,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >>On 07/13/2013 09:18 PM, Star Tan wrote: >>> >>> >>> At 2013-07-14 02:30:07,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >&gt...

At 2013-09-09 13:07:07,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 09/09/2013 05:18 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> >> At 2013-09-09 05:52:35,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> >>> On 09/08/2013 08:03 PM, Star Tan wrote: >>> Also, I wonder if your runs include the dependence analysis. If this is >>> the

On 03/23/2013 05:23 PM, tanmx_star wrote: > Dear Tobies, > > Sorry for the late reply. > > I have checked the experiment and I found some of the data is mismatched because of incorrect manual copy and paste, so I have written a Shell script to automatically collect data. Newest data is listed in the attached file....

Hi all, I have updated my GSoS proposal: "FastPolly: Reducing LLVM-Polly Compiling overhead" (https://gist.github.com/tanstar/5441808). I think the pass ordering problem you discussed early can be also investigated in this project! Is there any comment or advice about my proposal? I appreciate all your help and advice. Thanks, Star Tan Proposal:

At 2013-07-14 13:20:42,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 07/13/2013 09:18 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> >> >> At 2013-07-14 02:30:07,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >>> On 07/13/2013 10:13 AM, Star Tan wrote: >>>> Hi Tobias, >>> >>> Hi Star, >[...] >>> Before we write a

...#39;s optimization. At least we should avoid the performance regression. In the next step, I will evaluate those polly canonicalization passes without -polly-codegen-scev to understand their compile-time and execution-time impact. Best, Mingxing At 2013-09-14 09:51:10,"Star Tan" <tanmx_star at yeah.net> wrote: Hello all, I have evaluated the compile-time and execution-time performance of Polly canonicalization passes. Details can be referred to http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity. There are four runs: pollyBasic (run 45): clang -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang LL...

Hi, I think this should also go on the llvm-dev mailing list... On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Star Tan <tanmx_star at yeah.net> wrote: > > At 2013-07-14 02:30:07,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >>On 07/13/2013 10:13 AM, Star Tan wrote: >>> Hi Tobias, >> >>Hi Star, >> >>thanks for the update. I copied the polly mailing list, as I beli...

...le to optimize string operations in Polly-Detect pass. > In this patch file, I put most of long string operations in the condition variable of "PollyViewMode" or in the DEBUG mode. OK. > From 448482106e8d815afa40e4ce8543ba3f6f0237f1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Star Tan <tanmx_star at yeah.net> > Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 23:48:45 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH] ScopDetect: Optimize compile-time cost for log string > operations. > > String operatioins resulted by raw_string_ostream in the INVALID macro can lead > to significant compile-time overhead when compiling...

Hi Tobias, I have attached a patch file to optimize string operations in Polly-Detect pass. In this patch file, I put most of long string operations in the condition variable of "PollyViewMode" or in the DEBUG mode. Bests, Star Tan At 2013-07-22 22:27:48,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 07/22/2013 01:46 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> At

Dear Tobies, Sorry for the late reply. I have checked the experiment and I found some of the data is mismatched because of incorrect manual copy and paste, so I have written a Shell script to automatically collect data. Newest data is listed in the attached file. Tobies, I have made a simple HTML page (attached polly-compiling-overhead.html) to show the experimental data and my plans for this

...time is reduced from 40.5261 ( 51.2%) to 5.8813s (15.9%) with this patch file. However, this patch file does not solve this problem. It only shows the reason why polly-detect pass leads to significant compile-time overhead. Best wishes, Star Tan. At 2013-07-14 17:26:19,"Star Tan" <tanmx_star at yeah.net> wrote: At 2013-07-14 13:20:42,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 07/13/2013 09:18 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> >> >> At 2013-07-14 02:30:07,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >>> On 07/13/2013 10:...

...lification),  which may reduce Polly canonicalization passes . Preliminary testing shows no extra error happens in LLVM test-suite and detailed evaluation is running. Hope we can get detailed results after several hours's running. Best, Star Tan At 2013-09-22 13:02:38,"Star Tan" <tanmx_star at yeah.net> wrote: Hi Tobias,At 2013-09-19 22:59:25,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote:>On 09/19/2013 04:46 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> Hi Tobias, >> >> >> I am trying to move Polly later. >> >> >> LLVM provides some predefined...

On 07/22/2013 01:46 AM, Star Tan wrote: > At 2013-07-22 12:16:53,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> I propose two more patches: >> >> 1) Transform the INVALID macro into function calls, that format >> the text and that set LastFailure. > Translating the INVALID macro into function calls would complicate the operations for