search for: tanstar

...help from Polly and LLVM group, I have also provided some LLVM-Polly patch files for this project, such as r179673, r179586, r179159, r179158, r179157, r178530. I am confident that I am on the right position to propose a GSoC project. I have wrote a GSoC proposal draft in https://gist.github.com/tanstar/5441808. I am pleased to answer any questions about this project. Any advice or comment would be appreciated. Thank you very much! Best regards, Star Tan. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/201...

...t;(); AU.addRequired<DataLayout>(); How could I find out where the time is spent on between two adjacent Polly passes? Can anyone give me some advice? Thank you! Best Regards Star Tan. PS: I have updated my GSoC proposal. You can access the application on https://gist.github.com/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_sta...

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. Yes, automatizing those experiments to make them reproducible is a

...p://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16843), and I would reported other bugs for those benchmarks whose compile time is significantly increased but without execution performance improvement. Furthermore, you can view top 10 compiler passes when compiling with Polly as follows: https://gist.github.com/tanstar/581bcea1e4e03498f935/raw/f6a4ec4e8565f7a7bbdb924cd59fcf145caac039/Polly-top10 >> Even without optimization and code generation, Polly also increases the compile time for some benchmarks. >> As shown on: >>      http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/29?compare_to=28&basel...

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: https://gist.github.com/tanstar/5441808 >Hi all, > > >This i...

...t; wrote: >>> On 08/08/2013 01:29 AM, Star Tan wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> >>>> I have summarized the top 10 compiler passes for Polly when compiling LLVM test-ssuite. Results can be viewed on: >>>>       https://gist.github.com/tanstar/581bcea1e4e03498f935/raw/f6a4ec4e8565f7a7bbdb924cd59fcf145caac039/Polly-top10 >>>> >>>> >>>> Based on the comparison between "clang -O3" and "polly -O3" listed on: >>>>       http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/18?compare_to...

...08/08/2013 01:29 AM, Star Tan wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have summarized the top 10 compiler passes for Polly when compiling LLVM test-ssuite. Results can be viewed on: >>>>> https://gist.github.com/tanstar/581bcea1e4e03498f935/raw/f6a4ec4e8565f7a7bbdb924cd59fcf145caac039/Polly-top10 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Based on the comparison between "clang -O3" and "polly -O3" listed on: >>>>> http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/...

On 08/10/2013 06:59 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi all, > > I have evaluated Polly's performance on LLVM test-suite with latest LLVM (r188054) and Polly (r187981). Results can be viewed on: http://188.40.87.11:8000. Hi Star Tan, thanks for the update. > There are mainly five new tests and each test is run with 10 samples: > clang (run id = 27): clang -O3 > pollyBasic (run id =

...t;tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> On 08/08/2013 01:29 AM, Star Tan wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> >>> I have summarized the top 10 compiler passes for Polly when compiling LLVM test-ssuite. Results can be viewed on: >>> https://gist.github.com/tanstar/581bcea1e4e03498f935/raw/f6a4ec4e8565f7a7bbdb924cd59fcf145caac039/Polly-top10 >>> >>> >>> Based on the comparison between "clang -O3" and "polly -O3" listed on: >>> http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/18?compare_to=14&baseline...

...ot;Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 08/08/2013 01:29 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> >> I have summarized the top 10 compiler passes for Polly when compiling LLVM test-ssuite. Results can be viewed on: >>      https://gist.github.com/tanstar/581bcea1e4e03498f935/raw/f6a4ec4e8565f7a7bbdb924cd59fcf145caac039/Polly-top10 >> >> >> Based on the comparison between "clang -O3" and "polly -O3" listed on: >>      http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/18?compare_to=14&baseline=14 > >Plea...

Hi all, I have evaluated Polly's performance on LLVM test-suite with latest LLVM (r188054) and Polly (r187981).  Results can be viewed on: http://188.40.87.11:8000. There are mainly five new tests and each test is run with 10 samples: clang (run id = 27):  clang -O3 pollyBasic (run id = 28):  clang -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so pollyNoGen (run id = 29):  pollycc -O3 -mllvm -polly-optimizer=none

Hi all, I have summarized the top 10 compiler passes for Polly when compiling LLVM test-ssuite. Results can be viewed on: https://gist.github.com/tanstar/581bcea1e4e03498f935/raw/f6a4ec4e8565f7a7bbdb924cd59fcf145caac039/Polly-top10 Based on the comparison between "clang -O3" and "polly -O3" listed on: http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/18?compare_to=14&baseline=14 we can see Polly's compile-time overhead i...

...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 PolyBench and MediaBench. Results are listed on https://gist.github.com/tanstar/5508153 . Thanks again for your timely advice and help. Best regards, Star Tan. At 2013-05-02 17:38:22,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 04/30/2013 04:13 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> Hi all, >[...] >> How could I find out where the time is spent on b...

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

On 08/08/2013 01:29 AM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi all, > > > I have summarized the top 10 compiler passes for Polly when compiling LLVM test-ssuite. Results can be viewed on: > https://gist.github.com/tanstar/581bcea1e4e03498f935/raw/f6a4ec4e8565f7a7bbdb924cd59fcf145caac039/Polly-top10 > > > Based on the comparison between "clang -O3" and "polly -O3" listed on: > http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/18?compare_to=14&baseline=14 Please compare against clang...

On 04/26/2013 05:08 AM, tanmx_star wrote: > Hi all, Hi, thanks for the update and sorry for the delay in reviewing. I just had a look at your proposal. > 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! Yes, figuring out the optimal path ordering sequence is very good. > Is there any comment or advice about my proposal? I appreciate all your help and advice. > 1. Summary: > >...

...s. 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 > PolyBench and MediaBench. Results are listed on > https://gist.github.com/tanstar/5508153 . Great. Thanks for the quick update and the nice formatting of your proposal. > In this project, I try to reduce Polly compile-time overhead by > revising Polly passes. For this purpose, I firstly try to find out > where the compile-time overhead comes from. When Polly optimize...

...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 >> PolyBench and MediaBench. Results are listed on >> https://gist.github.com/tanstar/5508153 . > >Great. Thanks for the quick update and the nice formatting of your >proposal. > >> In this project, I try to reduce Polly compile-time overhead by >> revising Polly passes. For this purpose, I firstly try to find out >> where the compile-time overhead com...