similar to: High Performance containers

> You can imagine a community the size of LLVM's having to rely on > external libraries that may have the same goals today, but different > paths tomorrow. The end result is the same: a fork for the things that > matter to us, just like we've done with the standard library. > > All in all, your library looks really nice, and it does solve an > intersection of the

On 17 August 2017 at 15:27, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > Speaking of benchmarks, we might be able use the library, or some parts of > it, in our test suite for correctness and performance testing. I see some > stand-alone benchmarks that seem useful (e.g., > https://github.com/insideloop/InsideLoop/blob/master/il/benchmark/types/32-vs-64-bit-integers.cpp) > but

Hi Dean. Thanks for your reply. The ADT library is exactly what I end up replicating. My library started 2 years ago and at the beginning, what I needed was very different from LLVM. My first containers were: - A custom std::vector that does not initialize elements to 0 for int, double, etc. This is very important in HPC for the first touch policy used on NUMA architectures. It also allows

Hi, I’ve made my own version of std::vector which is called il::Vector. Due to http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3664.html <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3664.html>, LLVM can optimise away memory allocation. Therefore, the following code optimise away all memory allocation for w resulting in a single allocation during the whole program (for

I’ve missed it. I did a quick search and the only thread I found is back from 2013. Could you please provide me with a link to the thread? François Fayard Founder & Consultant - Inside Loop Tel: +33 (0)6 01 44 06 93 <tel:+33%206%2001%2044%2006%2093> Web: www.insideloop.io <http://www.insideloop.io/> Twitter: @insideloop_io > On 06 May 2015, at 07:21, David Blaikie <dblaikie

> It is not clear what the test-case is (what source, what compiler options). My suspicion is that your differences are in the noise, and most of the time is spent doing other things than hashing. Did you profile the a run, and check how much of the total time is spent in the hash-function [you may need to tweak the code a bit to not inline the actual hash function]. Also publishing the RANGE

Hi, I’ve been looking at Chandler Carruth talks about internal data structures for LLVM in order to implement my own library. That’s how I ended up looking at the internals of DenseMap and the default hash functions defined in DenseMapInfo. I have been very surprised by the hash function used for integers which is hash(k) = 37 * k. This kind of hashing function does not change the lowest bits of

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Bruce Hoult <bruce at hoult.org> wrote: > > Both are not very sophisticated. > You should also look at the different MurmurHash versions, and descendants such as CityHash. I did a few benchmark this morning, trying to tweak the hashing for pointers (as many people seem to use pointers as keys). The hash function in LLVM is quite simple, but it

Hi, I’ve made my own version of std::vector which is called il::Vector. Due to http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3664.html <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3664.html>, LLVM can optimise away memory allocation. Therefore, the following code optimise away all memory allocation for w resulting in a single allocation during the whole program (for

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 2:31 AM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > As others have pointed out, 37 does have some nice properties (by being prime), but we’ve also had it from the very early days. I wouldn’t say that it has been extremely well considered at all. > > -Chris Thanks for your reply. But I am not sure to understand the last sentence. Does it mean that

Hi, Even though this question does not only concern LLVM, it seems that only compilers guru can answer it. So I am giving a try here, hoping for the best. In a recent talk by Chandler Carruth, “Performance with algorithms, efficiency with data structures” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHNmRkzxHWs <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHNmRkzxHWs> ), Chandler says that one should never

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 8:56 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote > > Some tests I can suggest is to replace the hash function with your favorite and: Thanks. I’ll give it a try. It will take some time as I need to rewrite DenseMap if I want to use the Knuth multiplicative hash. > ultimately I believe real-world impact is the best way to get a change in. That’s

On Jan 20, 2013, at 7:46 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> It is one of the motivations. > > The reason I ask is that STL comes all ready, with containers and algorithms. They may not be optimal for every task, but they do their job and they are part of the standard. There may be some price to pay in terms of performance/memory usage/etc. for a

On 1/21/2013 12:35 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > I'm confused here. You're acting as though we don't use the STL. In fact, we do use std::string, std::vector, std::map etc when they are the right solution for the job. I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind the decisions made at the beginning of LLVM. My working assumption is that ADT didn't exist when LLVM

i removed printf from loop. Now getting no error. but the IR doesnot contain vectorized code. IR Output is as follows: ; ModuleID = 'sum-vec.ll' source_filename = "sum-vec.c" target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128" target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" ; Function Attrs: norecurse nounwind readnone uwtable define i32 @main(i32, i8**

Hi, I want an efficient way to implement function pow in LLVM instead of invoking pow() math built-in. For algorithm part, I am clear for the logic. But I am not quite sure for which parts of LLVM should I replace built-in pow with another efficient pow implementation. Any comments and feedback are appreciated. Thanks! -- Wei Ding -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

Hi All, I am in the process of writing an R extension in c++ and am using several STL containers (e.g., vector<double>, map<int, double>, multimap<int, double>). I make sure to clear all these containers at the end of the .Call. Everything compiles and runs just fine, but I'm a bit worried since I haven't found any other packages that use STL. So, my question: is it

Hi all ! InPlaceEditor refreshes only the element that was updated. Is there any way to make it update tons of other stuff ? I have a table where changing a value in it causes changes in most other cells (weight to percentage to money). Thanks for any help ! -- François Beausoleil http://blog.teksol.info/ _______________________________________________ Rails-spinoffs mailing list

Hello, I can''t solve my problem. I want a 32 bits Lenny domU into a 64 bits Lenny dom0. I plan to use pygrub for that (xen 3.2.1). So, I tried to debootstrap a 32 bits domU into a 64 bits dom0. debootstrap --arch=i386 --include=libc6-xen,firmware-bnx2,linux-image-2.6.26-1-xen-686,linux-modules-xen-686,linux-image-xen-686,grub --components=main,contrib,non-free lenny /mnt/xen

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Feb 17, 2012, at 12:26 AM, Talin wrote: > > OK here's a patch with the latest, including unit tests. I've also tried > to make the comments clear that this is intended for the case of "generic" > key types, where you are either hashing multiple data types together, or > you