similar to: non-isomorphic sequences

While playing with SLPVectorizer, I notice that it will happily vectorize cases involving extractelement/insertelement, but won't vectorize isomorphic cases involving extractvalue/insertvalue (such as the attached example). Is that something that could be straightforward to add to SLPVectorizer, or are there some hard issue? In particular, the transformation would seem to require casts of

Dear R users,  I have 2 matrices dim(16x5) below and i want to write an algorithm that check the 2 matrices if they are isomorphic ones (Isomorphic matrices: if I change the rows or/and columns or/and zeros into 1 and 1 into zeros in a row(s) or column(s) are the 2 matrices identical). 0    0    0    0    0  1    0    1    0    1  0    1    1    0    0  1    1    0    0    1  0    0    0    1    1

On 9/29/2020 14:37, David Chisnall via llvm-dev wrote: > On 28/09/2020 15:45, Matt P. Dziubinski via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hey, I noticed this talk from the EuroLLVM 2015 >> (https://llvm.org/devmtg/2015-04/slides/pslp_slides_EUROLLVM2015.pdf) >> on the PSLP vectorization algorithm (CGO 2015 paper: >> http://vporpo.me/papers/pslp_cgo2015.pdf). >> >> Is anyone

> > > > Also as a side note, I think in the original MachineOutliner RFC thread > there was some confusion as to whether it was possible to solve the code > folding outlining problem exactly as a graph problem on SSA using standard > value numbering algorithms in polynomial time. > > I can elaborate further, but > 1. it is easy to see that you can map an arbitrary

Dear R users, i have this problem with matrices i want to check between two matrices if they are isomorphic i will give an example for what excactly i want   1 -1  1                                 -1  1   1 -1   1  -1                                1  -1  -1   1  1   -1                                1   1  -1 this two matrices are isomorphic beacause if i change the first 2 columns the matrices

On 18 April 2016 at 19:22, Philip Reames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 04/18/2016 09:45 AM, Artur Pilipenko via llvm-dev wrote: > > In the current mangling scheme for overloaded intrinsics we include > overloaded type names in the intrinsic name. For example: > > %struct.foobar = type { i32 } > declare <4 x %struct.foobar*>

Am Mi., 29. Mai 2019 um 13:31 Uhr schrieb Shawn Landden via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 10:49 AM David Jones via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Under certain circumstances, my compiler outputs basic blocks having the same function: > > > > bb_97: ;

In the current mangling scheme for overloaded intrinsics we include overloaded type names in the intrinsic name. For example: %struct.foobar = type { i32 } declare <4 x %struct.foobar*> @llvm.masked.load.v4p0struct.foobar(<4 x %struct.foobar*>*, i32, <4 x i1>, <4 x %struct.foobar*>) Verifier checks that an overloaded intrinsic name matches with its signature. When

> > > I don't agree, but this is because I fail to see how the two > representations (the GCC-like one you've outlined and the current one with > the proposed extension) aren't completely isomorphic. Your proposal is: > > Lots of data structures are completely isomorphic in the same way, and in plenty of those cases, one is completely unusable, and the other

On Dec 20, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote: > Is it legal to substitute non struct type instead of opaque type? > > For example: > ; 1.ll > declare void @F(i32*) > > ; 2.ll > %T1 = type opaque > declare void @F(%T1*) > > Is it normal to replace T1 with i32 here? Yes, the linker will do this, because it is forced to break type safety to link up the

OK. So if we have two modules with the same function name. This functions may not be isomorphic. For example, we can link this files, but the function types are not isomorphic: ; 1.ll %T1 = type opaque declare i32 @foo(%T1*) ; 2.ll define i32 @foo(i32* %v) {...something...} But at the same time we should not map next two functions (PR11627): ; 3.ll declare i32 @foo(i16* %v) ; 4.ll define

Is it legal to substitute non struct type instead of opaque type? For example: ; 1.ll declare void @F(i32*) ; 2.ll %T1 = type opaque declare void @F(%T1*) Is it normal to replace T1 with i32 here? If yes. Will the next types are isomorphic?: %T1 = type opaque { i32, %T1* } { i32, i32* } -Stepan.

On Jun 12, 2008, at 11:38, Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Tue, 06 May 2008 16:06:35 -0400, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> On 2008-05-06, at 13:42, Hendrik Boom wrote: >> >>> One more question. I hope you're not getting tired of me already. >>> Does generating LLVM code have to proceed in any particular order? >>> >>> Of course, if I am writing

I have 3003 16x5 submatrices from a hadamard matrice of 16x15. I want to write an algorithm that check all of these 3003 matrices if they are isomorphic and i want to find and keep the non-isomorphic ones. Any help will be welcome.  [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi Michael, since noone of the experts answered, let me share our experiences. We recently had exactly the same problem, I posted on this list on January 31st. I didn't follow Duncans advice to "just use the linker", since for several reasons we wanted to have unique struct types even in the separate modules. > 1) duplicate the LinkModule internal code and copy the module we

Hi Andrew, Thanks for this great work and presentation, I've also a huge interest in code size reduction. I already looked at the first IR Outliner proposal, and I really like your more general approach. I wanted to look at the impact on ARM targets, and managed to apply your patchset up to D87311 (the remaining ones which are related to call instructions and GEP need to be reworked to be

Hi all, We've run into a tricky situation in our work on the Crack compiler and I'm hoping that someone on this list can help us find the best solution. We're currently trying to implement "module caching" for Crack, similar to the feature in Python where module bitcode is persisted at compile time. When we import a module, before compiling the module we check for a

Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 22:06 Uhr schrieb Uday Kumar Reddy Bondhugula < uday at polymagelabs.com>: > Hi Michael, > > Although the approach to use a higher order in-memory abstraction like the > loop tree will make it easier than what you have today, if you used MLIR > for this representation, you already get a round trippable textual format > that is *very close* to your

On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 16:48, Andrew Litteken <andrew.litteken at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Yvan, > > Glad to hear you’re interested! I’m not sure which ordering you’re looking at the patches, but a cost model was not added to the outliner until D87299. So, if that hasn’t been added I would expect some pretty big code increases since it just outlines whatever similarity it finds

Hi all, Does anyone know of a good solution to the following? I'm trying to find a good way to stably associate distinct ID numbers with different BB in a module. As long as the module's IR hasn't changed in any way whatsoever, I'd like to be guaranteed to always generate the same ID <--> BB mapping. Or if the mapping is ambiguous, because two or more mappings between