search for: xerofoify

...t; have further questions. >> >> >> Hi Whitney, thanks for the video link and info. I was a bit busy today, >> but I will work tomorrow and get back to you on this! >> >> Best, >> Benson >> >> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 12:54 PM Nicholas Krause <xerofoify at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 3/17/20 10:09 AM, Stefanos Baziotis wrote: >>> >>> Hi Nick, >>> >>> What you said makes sense, but it's not called a call graph. :) >>> >>> Sure I assumed so...

...makes sense, but as I mentioned earlier, this is already done in the LoopInfo. Now, how much one will be able to use it in a LoopNestPass is another issue, which is certainly something that mentors could help you with. Best, Stefanos Στις Τρί, 17 Μαρ 2020 στις 3:35 μ.μ., ο/η Nicholas Krause < xerofoify at gmail.com> έγραψε: > > > On 3/17/20 9:23 AM, Stefanos Baziotis wrote: > > > Yes that's correct. > Well, now that I saw the LoopNestAnalysis* files, they try to do sth > similar. So, I hope it helped. > > > My idea was similar but using the call graph dire...

On 11/22/19 2:46 PM, David Blaikie wrote: > Sorry, I'm not sure I follow/understand your email, or what sort of > replies/responses/discussion you're hoping to get from it - perhaps > you could rephrase and/or provide more detail? David, Sorry its more to give you guys a heads up in case they ask about it being of interest and know that its something of interest outside that

...; Please feel free to email me or Ettore if you encounter any blockers, or > have further questions. Hi Whitney, thanks for the video link and info. I was a bit busy today, but I will work tomorrow and get back to you on this! Best, Benson On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 12:54 PM Nicholas Krause <xerofoify at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 3/17/20 10:09 AM, Stefanos Baziotis wrote: > > Hi Nick, > > What you said makes sense, but it's not called a call graph. :) > > Sure I assumed so that was just a term I used by mistake :). > > You're essentially referring to...

Hi Nicholas, The admin of the buildbot is aware of this, will handle it after long weekend. Thanks. Best, Jinsong Ji (纪金松), PhD. XL/LLVM on Power Compiler Development E-mail: jji at us.ibm.com From: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify at gmail.com> To: Jinsong Ji <jji at us.ibm.com>, "Finkel, Hal J." <hfinkel at anl.gov> Cc: "llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>, "powerllvm at ca.ibm.com"...

On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 4:00 PM Nicholas Krause <xerofoify at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 2/29/20 6:17 PM, River Riddle via llvm-dev wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:25 PM David Blaikie via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:19 PM Chris Lattner &...

...gt; >>> >>> Hi Whitney, thanks for the video link and info. I was a bit busy today, >>> but I will work tomorrow and get back to you on this! >>> >>> Best, >>> Benson >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 12:54 PM Nicholas Krause <xerofoify at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/17/20 10:09 AM, Stefanos Baziotis wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Nick, >>>> >>>> What you said makes sense, but it's not called a call graph. :) >&gt...

...ntification is not your problem, loop traversing is, if I understand it correctly. Although you have to do things similar to loop identification (i.e. what LoopInfo does) when trying to decide for perfect nestings etc. Best, Stefanos Στις Τρί, 17 Μαρ 2020 στις 3:08 μ.μ., ο/η Nicholas Krause < xerofoify at gmail.com> έγραψε: > > > On 3/16/20 11:41 PM, Stefanos Baziotis wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > I probably do not have the time to get a patch through. > IMHO, you do. :) > > First of all, @Benson sorry but I'm not at all familiar with LLDB so I > can...

On 2/28/20 12:56 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Feb 27, 2020, at 9:44 PM, Nicholas Krause <xerofoify at gmail.com > <mailto:xerofoify at gmail.com>> wrote: >> On 2/28/20 12:19 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: >>> Hi Nicholas, >>> >>> You might want to check out MLIR: its pass manager is already >>> automatically and implicitly multithreaded. >>...

> On Mar 20, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Nicholas Krause <xerofoify at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> The problem isn’t constants or functions themselves, it is that they are instances of llvm::Value. Everything that walks a use/def list would have to run code that checks for this, and every call to inst->setOperand() would have to do locking or...

On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 5:14 PM Nicholas Krause via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 2/29/20 7:23 PM, River Riddle wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 4:00 PM Nicholas Krause <xerofoify at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On 2/29/20 6:17 PM, River Riddle via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:25 PM David Blaikie via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> &gt...

On 2/28/20 12:19 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > Hi Nicholas, > > You might want to check out MLIR: its pass manager is already automatically and implicitly multithreaded. > > -Chris Chris, I was aware that LLVM was moving to MLIR at some point due to this. I've curious as to how MLIR deals with IPO as that's the problem I was running into. Even if you have pipelines what

Currently I’m writing a X86 backend pass for my research project. I inserted a few instructions in MachineBasicBlocks, but then llc optimized my code, and deleted some of it. So how to so backend pass after all machine level optimizations?

> On Mar 19, 2020, at 2:31 PM, Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote: > > I think addressing this issue first makes sense. I would however start > by determining the actual impact of different design choices here. I > mean, do we know locks will be heavily contented? If I had to guess I'd > say most passes will not create or modify functions nor add

...ude/llvm/Transforms/Scalar/LoopPassManager.h#L230 So, maybe if you could modify that to something like FunctionToLestNestPassAdaptor, it would work? I don't know that's just an idea, let me not confuse you more. Best, Stefanos Στις Δευ, 16 Μαρ 2020 στις 5:53 π.μ., ο/η Nicholas Krause < xerofoify at gmail.com> έγραψε: > > > On 3/15/20 11:12 PM, Benson Bin Bin Li via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi Stefanos, > > First, thanks a lot for the very detailed response! I watched both of the > videos, and I seem to have a rough idea now of how each of the different > pieces of...

-- The C compiler identification is GNU 7.3.1 -- The CXX compiler identification is GNU 7.3.1 According to buildbot log here http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64be-linux/builds/37730/steps/cmake%20stage%201/logs/stdio for Simon's example ICE. Best, Jinsong Ji (纪金松), PhD. XL/LLVM on Power Compiler Development E-mail: jji at us.ibm.com From: "Finkel, Hal J. via

On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:25 PM David Blaikie via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:19 PM Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> wrote: > >> On Feb 29, 2020, at 2:08 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I've >>> curious as >>> to how MLIR deals with IPO as that's

Hi Stefanos, First, thanks a lot for the very detailed response! I watched both of the videos, and I seem to have a rough idea now of how each of the different pieces of software maps onto the compilation process. Though I found blogs such as these two: https://jonasdevlieghere.com/understanding-the-clang-ast/, https://releases.llvm.org/2.6/docs/tutorial/JITTutorial1.html to be better for a more