similar to: IVUsers pass is fragile. Is this okay? How can it be resolved?

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 10000 matches similar to: "IVUsers pass is fragile. Is this okay? How can it be resolved?"

2017 Sep 14
2
IVUsers pass is fragile. Is this okay? How can it be resolved?
Thank you for your thoughts, Hal. More information below... On Sep 13, 2017, at 5:43 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote: On 09/13/2017 01:01 PM, Daniel Neilson via llvm-dev wrote: … snip For example, the following IR will produce different sets of IV users if either: i) The order of the PHI nodes in the %loop block are reordered; or ii) The
2017 Sep 15
2
IVUsers pass is fragile. Is this okay? How can it be resolved?
On Sep 14, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote: On 09/14/2017 10:43 AM, Daniel Neilson wrote: Thank you for your thoughts, Hal. More information below... On Sep 13, 2017, at 5:43 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote: On 09/13/2017 01:01 PM, Daniel Neilson via llvm-dev wrote: … snip For
2017 Sep 16
0
IVUsers pass is fragile. Is this okay? How can it be resolved?
On 09/14/2017 10:31 PM, Daniel Neilson wrote: > > >> On Sep 14, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov >> <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote: >> >> >> On 09/14/2017 10:43 AM, Daniel Neilson wrote: >>> Thank you for your thoughts, Hal. More information below... >>> >>>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 5:43 PM, Hal Finkel
2016 May 16
6
Working on FP SCEV Analysis
[+CC Andy] Hi Elena, I don't have any fundamental issues with teaching SCEV about floating point types, but given this will be a major change, I think a high level roadmap should be discussed on llvm-dev before we start reviewing and committing changes. Here are some issues that I think are worth discussing: - Core motivation: why do we even care about optimizing floating point
2011 Sep 12
1
[LLVMdev] IVUsers (LoopPass) analysis in a ModulePass?
Hi Tim, > From: Tim Creech <tcreech at umd.edu> > Subject: [LLVMdev] IVUsers (LoopPass) analysis in a ModulePass? > Date: September 1, 2011 11:46:28 AM PDT > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > > Hi all, > I have a loadable ModulePass which does transformations, and I would like to > use IVUsers analysis within it. I noticed when I try to do this (via > the usual
2015 Aug 17
4
RFC for a design change in LoopStrengthReduce / ScalarEvolution
> I don't understand why you want to factor out the information, > exactly. It seems like what you need is a function like: > > unsigned getMinLeadingZeros(const SCEV *); > > then, if you want to get the non-extended expression, you can just > apply an appropriate truncation. I assume, however, that I'm missing > something. The problem is not about how to codegen
2008 Jun 22
1
two newbie questions
# I've tried to make this easy to paste into R, though it's probably so simple you won't need to. # I have some data (there are many more variables, but this is a reasonable approximation of it) # here's a fabricated data frame that is similar in form to mine: my.df <- data.frame(replicate(10, round(rnorm(100, mean=3.5, sd=1)))) var.list <- c("dv1",
2012 May 19
3
anovas ss typeI vs typeIII
Hi all, I have been struggling with ANOVAs on R. I am new to R, so I created a simple data frame, and I do some analyses on R just to learn R and then check them on SPSS to make sure that I am doing fine. Here is the problem that I've run into: when we use the aov function, it uses SS Type I as default (on SPSS it is Type III). Then I used the Anova function under cars package using the
2012 Mar 17
1
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] Review Request: Use SmallPtrSetImpl instead of SmallPtrSet in funciton IVUsers::AddUsersIfInteresting
hi, On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > Yep. I normally do that. I was under some strange impression last night that SmallPtrSetImpl wasn't a template. The patch is incorrect because the SmallPtrSetImpl is neither a template nor has an "insert" function... After a detailed look at the header of SmallPtrSet, I found that the
2015 Jul 01
3
[LLVMdev] Deriving undefined behavior from nsw/inbounds/poison for scalar evolution
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bjarke Roune" <broune at google.com> > To: "Jingyue Wu" <jingyue at google.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 8:16:13 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Deriving undefined behavior from nsw/inbounds/poison for scalar evolution > > Hi Adam, > > Jingyue is right. We need to keep
2014 Feb 19
2
[LLVMdev] better code for IV
Hi Andrew, The issue below refers to LSR, so I'll appreciate your feedback. It also refers to instruction combining and might impact backends other than X86, so if you know of others that might be interested you are more than welcome to add them. Thanks, Anat _____________________________________________ From: Shemer, Anat Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 15:07 To: 'llvmdev at
2009 Aug 19
2
lmer with random slopes for 2 or more first-level factors?
I have data from a design in which items are completely nested within subjects. Subject is the only second-level factor, but I have multiple first-level factors (IVs). Say there are 2 such independent variables that I am interested in. What is the proper syntax to fit a mixed-effects model with a by-subject random intercept, and by-subject random slopes for both the 2 IVs? I can
2014 Jan 16
3
[LLVMdev] Loop unrolling opportunity in SPEC's libquantum with profile info
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > Was the vectorizer successful in unrolling the loop in quantum_sigma_x? I > wonder if 'size’ is typically high or low. No. The vectorizer stated that it wasn't going to bother with the loop because it wasn't profitable. Specifically: LV: Checking a loop in "quantum_sigma_x" LV: Found a
2013 Jun 25
2
[LLVMdev] [llvm] r184698 - Add a flag to defer vectorization into a phase after the inliner and its
----- Original Message ----- > > > > On Jun 24, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov > wrote: > > > > > Indvars should ideally preserve NSW flags whenever possible. However, > we don't want to rely on SCEV to preserve them. SCEV expressions are > implicitly reassociated and uniqued in a flow-insensitive universe > independent of the
2012 Dec 10
3
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Teaching ScalarEvolution to handle IV=add(zext(trunc(IV)), Step)
Hello all, I wanted to get some feedback on this patch for ScalarEvolution. It addresses a performance problem I am seeing for simple benchmark. Starting with this C code: 01: signed char foo(void) 02: { 03: const int count = 8000; 04: signed char result = 0; 05: int j; 06: 07: for (j = 0; j < count; ++j) { 08: result += (result_t)(3); 09: } 10: 11: return result; 12: } I
2013 Jun 26
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm] r184698 - Add a flag to defer vectorization into a phase after the inliner and its
Sent from my iPhone... On Jun 25, 2013, at 8:14 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> >> >> >> On Jun 24, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Indvars should ideally preserve NSW flags whenever possible. However, >> we don't want to
2009 Nov 06
2
Adjusting Yaxis (ylim) limits on a plotMeans(DV, IV1, IV2, error.bars="se")
Hello everyone, I have tried to look for this everywhere and so far have no luck. I have a plotMeans(DV, IV1, IV2, error.bars="se") graph that plots my data (DV-continuous, IVs are factors, IV1 - two levels, IV2-four levels). I am trying to increase a scale of my y-axis (to be consistent with my other graphs), but unfortunately nothing works with "plotMeans" function, which
2013 Oct 23
2
[LLVMdev] First attempt at recognizing pointer reduction
On 21 October 2013 17:29, Arnold Schwaighofer <aschwaighofer at apple.com>wrote: > I don’t think that recognizing this as a reduction is going to get you > far. A reduction is beneficial if the value reduced is only truly needed > outside of a loop. > This is not the case here (we are storing/loading from the pointer). > Hi Arnold, Nadav, Let me resurrect this discussion a
2015 Aug 20
2
loop unrolling introduces conditional branch
Hi, I want to use loop unrolling pass, however, I find that loop unrolling will introduces conditional branch at end of every "unrolled" part. For example, consider the following code *void foo( int n, int array_x[])* *{* * for (int i=0; i < n; i++)* * array_x[i] = i; * *}* Then I use this command "opt-3.5 try.bc -mem2reg -loops -loop-simplify -loop-rotate -lcssa
2020 Jan 11
2
[RFC][SDAG] Convert build_vector of ops on extractelts into ops on input vectors
Thanks so much for your feedback Simon. I am not sure that what I am proposing here is at odds with what you're referring to (here and in the PR you linked). The key difference AFAICT is that the pattern I am referring to is probably more aptly described as "reducing scalarization" than as "vectorization". The reason I say that is that the inputs are vectors and the output