search for: waymarking

Hi llvm-dev, I have a patch open for review that removes waymarking https://reviews.llvm.org/D77144. This patch removes waymarking and replaces it with storing a pointer to the User in the Use. when compiling the CTMark tests of the test suite, this give an average of +1.8% max memory use and -1.1% compile time. Removing Waymarking also simplifies the code of Us...

...e worst case, 336 MB more memory spent on compilation. Is it worth it? I think it is. But I am not sure I see the whole picture - are there low-memory systems that need to run LLVM on? I am not sure what needs to be done to approve such a fundamental change; especially when we can't prove the Waymarking was needed at all. On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:10 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Apr 1, 2020, at 5:51 AM, Tyker1 at outlook.com via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > Hi llvm-dev, > > I have a patch open for...

Hi devs, after my intentionally "playful" EuroLLVM presentation (*) I think it would be time to get serious about merging to ToT. But we should probably find out whether an optimized algorithm is desired at all. So I'd solicit comments from the code owners (Use.{h,cpp}) and anybody who is interested. For closer scrutiny, the code is here:

...>> >> Is it worth it? I think it is. But I am not sure I see the whole picture - >> are there low-memory systems that need to run LLVM on? >> >> I am not sure what needs to be done to approve such a fundamental change; >> especially when we can't prove the Waymarking was needed at all. > I guess if no-one brings forth arguments (= results) for keeping it and > > people continue to support replacing it, we will replace it. There should > > be a grace period in which people have the chance to do their benchmarking > > (basically what is ha...

...2020 7:40 PM > *To:* Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> > *Cc:* Ehud Katz <ehudkatz at gmail.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Tyker1 at outlook.com <Tyker1 at outlook.com> > *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Removing Waymarking from Use. > > > > On Apr 3, 2020, at 11:06 AM, Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Is it worth it? I think it is. But I am not sure I see the whole picture - > are there low-memory systems that need to run LLVM on? > > I am no...

On 4/22/14, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 22, 2014, at 7:28 AM, Gabor Greif <ggreif at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi devs, >> >> after my intentionally "playful" EuroLLVM presentation (*) I think it >> would be time to get serious about merging to ToT. But we should >> probably find out whether an optimized

Did you consider using the waymarking algorithm we already use for going from Use->User to store the offset of an instruction in a basic block? We could steal the two bits needed from the bb parent pointer in the instruction. -- Sanjoy On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:20 AM Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>...

On 09/21/2018 01:30 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: On Sep 19, 2018, at 1:30 PM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: Hi folks, I looked into some slow compiles and filed https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38829. The gist of it is that we spend a lot of time iterating basic blocks to compute local dominance, i.e.