similar to: Adding pragma related metadata to only one loop

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Nitish Srivastava via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I am trying to locate the passes run by clang/opt when it is passed the option -O3. Can someone point me where to look at? Eventually, I want to

Hi, all. I want to give programmer ability to tell LLVM that certain region of code is expected to get specialized optimization. So, I'm trying to make custom pragma to mark certain region of code and pass this information to LLVM, in the similar way that '#pragma clang loop unroll_count(N)' works. By tracking the framework of loop unroll pragma, I found out it works in the way below.

Yes. I checked that file, but I wasn't sure whether that is right one to look at. What is *.td extension btw? When I google it, it says this is for Windows Debug Simulator. Why clang use this extension, which is limited to Windows environment? On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > That file is generated by the clang-tblgen tool: > >

> Yes. I checked that file, but I wasn't sure whether that is right one to look at. It seems promising. I imagine you'd want something like the LoopHint attr. > What is *.td extension btw? The llvm project uses that extension to identify TableGen inputs (http://llvm.org/docs/TableGen/). vedant > On Oct 25, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Sunghyun Park <sunggg at umich.edu> wrote:

hi R help group, I have installed PLS package in R and use it for princomp & prcomp commands for calculating PCA using its example file(USArrests example). But How I can use PLS for Partial least square, R square, mvrCv one more think how i can import external file in R. When I use plsr, R2, RMSEP it show error could not find function plsr, RMSEP etc. How I can calculate PLS, R2, RMSEP, PCR,

Hi, I am trying to build clang, however the build size is quite large. As clang supports non-C family languages as well ( e.g. Java, Fortran ), is there a way to turn that off during the build. I just want to have support for C and C++ and don't care about other languages. Is there a CMake option that needs to be set to do that?? Thanks a lot! Best Regards, Nitish ‌ -------------- next

Hi, I am trying to locate the passes run by clang/opt when it is passed the option -O3. Can someone point me where to look at? Eventually, I want to turn off just the LoopStrengthReduction pass in the -O3 set of default passes. Thanks, Best Regards, Nitish -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, Recently I've done some experiments on the LLVM/Clang code and discovered that many of our source files often include unnecessary header files. I wrote a simple tool that eliminates redundant includes and estimates benefits of doing it, and the results were quite nice: for some files we were able to save 90% of compile time! I think we want to apply some of the cleanups I found, but

It's also likely that a lot of '#include "foo.h"' can be replaced with 'class foo;' Especially in the transitive inclusion case, instead of removing the #include entirely. On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I, for one, want faster builds. > > Beyond that though, this seems like obvious

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:29 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > > If that is the goal, then you only want the modules for Machine IR, and maybe some core analysis passes. The “Machine” modules you listed above include machine code analysis or transform passes that you probably don’t want. Pruning the list to basic IR support: > >> - MachineBasicBlock >> -

> To find which header files could be removed it scanned the file for "#include" lines and tried to remove them one by one (checking if the file still compiles after the removal). When there were no more include lines to remove, we verified the change with ninja+ninja check. It looks like this makes us rely heavily on transitive header includes -- is that right? Specifically what I

Hi, I have some questions regarding outlining (extracting piece of code into a function): 1. Is there an outlining pass in llvm (IR)? I've found out CodeExtractor pass, but I'm not sure it's exactly the same idea. 2. How do I set the function name? And another question: Where do I control the execution of my pass? I'm writing a pass that first works on

Hi, I want to calculate PLS package in R. Now I want to calculate R, MSEP, RMSEP and R2 of PLSR and PCR using this. I also add this in library of R. How I can calculate R, MSEP, RMSEP and R2 of PLSR and PCR in R. I s any other method then please also suggest me. Simply I want to calculate these value. Thanking you. -- Nitish Kumar Mishra Junior Research Fellow BIC, IMTECH, Chandigarh, India

nitish wrote: > > I have a dataset that goes like: dataset = > t |x > 0 |x1 > 1 |x2 > 2 |0 > 3 |0 > 4 |0 > 5 |0 > 6 |x3 > 7 |0 > 8 |0 > 9 |0 > 10 |x4 > > and so on. I wish to detect the periodicity of occurrences. t is in > seconds and x are arbitrary, whose magnitude i am not interested in. I > just wish to get a best

Hi, I did the Pass ID workaround by providing Passes.h in the include/llvm/Machine. But the question which is holding me up is that, as Ken Dyck was kind enough to point out, what should be done to the dependency on libAnalysis? The Machine passes are not only dependent on Passes class but also on others such as the ConstantFolding.h. Is it a possible solution to break this dependency or carry

Hi, I tweaked my scripts to avoid removing includes when it doesn't give any significant benefits, which made the patches significantly smaller. This time the patches should not try to remove includes of header files, which are transitively included from other included header files. The gains mostly remained the same (plus/minus noise), the tables are in the end of the email. I also included

2017-12-09 12:54 GMT-08:00 Chris Lattner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > > > On Dec 8, 2017, at 5:01 PM, Mikhail Zolotukhin via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > I tweaked my scripts to avoid removing includes when it doesn't give any > significant benefits, which made the patches significantly smaller. This >

Hey all, IWYU maintainer here. I wanted to make a small observation. Surprisingly, IWYU will most often *add* includes to a reasonably well-factored codebase, and this ties into Chris' comment: > Beyond that though, this seems like obvious > goodness to reduce coupling in the codebase. Just blindly removing includes will probably increase coupling, not reduce it, because it optimizes

I'm not advocating AAA. However this is a proposal for more modern thinking regarding the permissiveness of auto in LLVM codebases. Currently the rule on the use of auto is here: https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#use-auto-type-deduction-to-make-code-more-readable It is quite strict. It allows the use of auto for * lambdas * iterators because they are long to type * casts to

Hi all, I am currently looking into how "#pragma omp for simd" is actually recognized in llvm. To my knowledge, clang will parse it and set metadata in IR to indicate this force-vectorization hint and later optimization passes would read it and vectorize the marked loop. Therefore, the loop should be vectorized even the compiler think it might not be safe to do so? So my