search for: tweede

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com> > To: "David Tweed" <david.tweed at gmail.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 11:08:23 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Regarding BOF: Vectorization in LLVM > > Hi David! > > On Nov 6, 2012, at 3:23 AM, David Tweed <david.tweed at

"David Tweed" <david.tweed at arm.com> writes: > I don't know of a book, but as a suggestion: is there anyone who's > teaching a course on compilers using LLVM who has the lecture notes > (or even better actual lectures) online? The LCC book (A Retargetable C Compiler: Design and Implementation [Addison-Wesley, 1995, ISBN 0805316701, ISBN-13 9780805316704]) has

Hi Nadav, Unfortunately I'm not attending the dev meeting, but the BoF looks interesting. One thing that I'd like to throw into the mix is that, while dealing with autovectorisation of LLVM compiled down from C-like languages (or maybe Fortran-like languages) is clearly a very big area for fruitful work both algorithmically and in terms of practical relevance, it'd also be interesting

Hi David! On Nov 6, 2012, at 3:23 AM, David Tweed <david.tweed at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Nadav, > > Unfortunately I'm not attending the dev meeting, but the BoF looks interesting. One thing that I'd like to throw into the mix is that, while dealing with autovectorisation of LLVM compiled down from C-like languages (or maybe Fortran-like languages) is clearly a very big

My personal views (by which I always mean that I'm speaking as one of the compiler engineers employed by ARM but not officially on behalf of ARM): On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:45 PM, dblaikie at gmail.com <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:05:38 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: > > My inbox has been filled with llvm.buildmaster at

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:03 AM, David Tweed <david.tweed at arm.com> wrote: >> I don't believe so - I think only a certain sliding window of logs are >> kept (& I don't know of an easy way to view a particular revision >> across the bots either) > > For me a bigger issue has been inability to see a long list of results for a > particular builder (say,

Here is a table detailing C++11 features support for Visual C++ 2010, 2012, 2013 http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/hh567368.aspx Specifically, range-based for loops are supported in Visual C++ 2012, 2013 but not in 2010. Yaron 2013/10/28 David Tweed <david.tweed at gmail.com> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: >

I've been told by one person that they're scheduled to give a very practical compiler university course using LLVM next year, so I was pretty sure that there must be several courses elsewhere in the world that have already been given. Looks like I was wrong about that. -----Original Message----- From: dag at cray.com [mailto:dag at cray.com] Sent: 03 April 2013 16:25 To: David Tweed Cc:

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com> >> To: "David Tweed" <david.tweed at gmail.com> >> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >> Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 11:08:23 AM >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Regarding BOF: Vectorization in

On 5 February 2013 11:03, David Tweed <david.tweed at arm.com> wrote: > since the more instructions there > are the more an out-of-order CPU can put them into otherwise unused slots. > I > can't think of a way of figuring out such a mapping other than empirically. > Given the amount of uncertainty on these OOO guesses, I don't think we can get anything worth trying,

David Tweed <david.tweed at gmail.com> writes: > A personal question: is there any way we could modify some part of the > build to do some of the "non-fatal but difficult to ignore" > announcement if the building compiler can't handle the upcoming > constructs? Eg, just thinking off the top of my head here, could we > abuse the make check/lit mechanism to get a

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>wrote: > On 28 November 2013 00:00, Robinson, Paul > <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote: > > In my experience, to a first approximation, anything > > that changes the CFG or that reorders generated code beyond source > > statement boundaries is likely to make things more

Hi, Thanks for the feedback. I think that we agree that vectorization on -Os can benefit many programs. Regarding -O2 vs -O3, maybe we should set a higher cost threshold for O2 to increase the likelihood of improving the performance ? We have very few regressions on -O3 as is and with better cost models I believe that we can bring them close to zero, so I am not sure if it can help that much.

Hi, On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 6:20 PM, <dag at cray.com> wrote: > David Tweed <david.tweed at gmail.com> writes: > > > A personal question: is there any way we could modify some part of the > > build to do some of the "non-fatal but difficult to ignore" > > announcement if the building compiler can't handle the upcoming > > constructs? Eg,

On 5 June 2013 13:32, David Tweed <david.tweed at arm.com> wrote: > This is what I'd like to know about: what specific potential to change > results have you seen in the vectorizer? > No changes, just conceptual. AFAIK, the difference between the passes on O2 and O3 are minimal (looking at the code where this is chosen) and they don't seem to be particularly amazing to

On 28 November 2013 13:31, David Tweed <david.tweed at gmail.com> wrote: > Indeed, a most of the bugs which > really need a debugger are manifest in big applications where even a > non-debug build can be very "not simple".) My example was a very crude example of simplicity. But the more complex your application is, the simpler you want the compiler to be for a debug

On 6 February 2013 16:00, David Tweed <david.tweed at arm.com> wrote: > Looking at the output from the a15 buildbot it looks like you are choosing > to do a "make clean". > I'm not choosing, this is the default "Clang" run. ;) If more people feel inclined to change the Clang build on all buildbots to use CMake / Ninja, I'm up for it, too. Galina, have

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > Dix Lorenz <lists at dix-lorenz.de> writes: > > > I might be mistaken, but to compile for WinXP on VS 2012 you have to > > switch the Platform Toolset and AFAICT that means it will essentially > > be using the VS 2010 compiler and libraries. > > That was how VS 2012 worked at

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 7:54 AM, David Tweed <david.tweed at arm.com> wrote: > | LLVM does not currently have special lowering handling for round(), and > I'll propose a patch to add that, but the larger question is this: should > fast-math change the tie-breaking behavior of > | rint/nearbyint/round, etc. and, if so, should we make a specific effort > to > have all

On 28 June 2013 14:06, David Tweed <david.tweed at arm.com> wrote: > That's a viewpoint; another one is that statisticians might well have very > good reasons why they spend so long coming up with statistical tests in > order to create the most powerful tests so they can deal with marginal > quantities of data. > 87.35% of all statistics are made up, 55.12% of them could