similar to: [RFC] Polly Status and Integration

Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael, and others, I'd like to add my view (and a proposal) to this discussion and I apologize directly for doing this so late*. I also want to apologize because this email is long, contains various technical details and also argumentations that might need more justification. However, I am happy to provide further information (and/or examples) to explain my views if

Hi, Johannes, Thanks for writing this. I certainly think you have the right idea in terms of the desired end state and modular design. On 09/19/2017 07:33 PM, Johannes Doerfert wrote: > Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael, and others, > > I'd like to add my view (and a proposal) to this discussion and I > apologize directly for doing this so late*. I also want to apologize > because this

On 09/11/2017 12:26 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: > Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael and others, > >> On Sep 1, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> ** >> >> *Hi everyone,As you may know, stock LLVM does not provide the kind of >> advanced loop transformations

Hal, Tobias, et al. – I am strongly in favor of seeing a broader range of loop transformations, supported by strong dependence analysis, added to LLVM, and the Polly infrastructure seems to be by far our best bet to make that happen. I have a couple of questions: 1) Integer constraint libraries like ISL (and Omega, which I used extensively in a previous project) are fundamentally solving

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 09/11/2017 12:26 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: >> Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael and others, >> >>> On Sep 1, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >>> >>>

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017, at 20:49, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev wrote: > [tying to original thread] > > On 09/04/2017 01:37 PM, Adve, Vikram Sadanand via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hal, Tobias, et al. – > > > > I am strongly in favor of seeing a broader range of loop transformations, supported by strong dependence analysis, added to LLVM, and the Polly infrastructure seems to be by far

A completely non-technical point, but what's the current "polly" license? Does integrating that code conflict in any way with the work being done to relicense llvm? Does adding polly expose any additional legal risks? Some people from Reservoir labs have explicitly stated to me that some of their patents target polyhedral optimizations. You should almost certainly review their

Hi Hal, On 09/22, Hal Finkel wrote: > Hi, Johannes, > > Thanks for writing this. I certainly think you have the right idea in terms > of the desired end state and modular design. Thanks for the feedback! > On 09/19/2017 07:33 PM, Johannes Doerfert wrote: > >Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael, and others, > > > >I'd like to add my view (and a proposal) to this

Hi Tobi,  I have some concerns about adding Polly into LLVM proper. I think that it's great that Polly is a part of the LLVM umbrella of projects, like Clang and LLDB. However, I am not convinced that Polly belongs in the LLVM compiler library. LLVM is a major dependency for so many external projects. Rust, Swift, GPU drivers by different vendors, and JIT compilers all rely on LLVM. Projects

On 09/12/2017 10:26 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner wrote: > > >> On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> >> On 09/11/2017 12:26 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: >>> Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael and others, >>> *...* >>> >>> One thing that I’d

Hi, Nadav, Chris, et al., If you've not already seen it, we had a long discussion about incorporating Polly into LLVM on llvm-dev, http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-September/117063.html (with a continuation in October: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-October/118125.html) with a lot of detailed information. I think it is important, first, that we agree on the goals

On 02/06/2012 10:02 PM, Preston Briggs wrote: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Sebastian Pop <spop at codeaurora.org > <mailto:spop at codeaurora.org>> wrote: >> [many things, but I'm only going to focus on one of them] Would >> you consider using Polly http://polly.grosser.es to avoid writing >> this code? > > My impression is that Polly (and

On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 20:59 -0800, Preston Briggs wrote: >> so are building a dependence graph for a complete function.  Of >> course, such a thing is useful for vectorization and all sorts of >> other dependence-based loop transforms. >> >> I'm looking at the problem in two parts:

On 09/22/2017 12:03 AM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > Hi Hal, > > > 2017-09-21 20:59 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>: > > > On 09/12/2017 10:26 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner wrote: >> >> >>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev >>> <llvm-dev at

>> for (unsigned i = 0; i < buckets; i++) >>  count[i] = 0; >> >> for (unsigned i = 0; i < n; i++) >>   count[src[i]]++; >> >> start[0] = 0; >> for (unsigned i = 1; i < buckets; i++) >>   start[i] = start[i - 1] + count[i - 1]; >> >> #pragma assert parallel >> for (unsigned i = 0; i < n; i++) { >>   unsigned

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Sebastian Pop <spop at codeaurora.org> wrote: > [many things, but I'm only going to focus on one of them] > Would you consider using Polly http://polly.grosser.es to avoid > writing this code? My impression is that Polly (and polyhedral analysis generally) doesn't do want I want. But I'm happy to talk about it 'cause I might be

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017, at 00:03, Johannes Doerfert wrote: > Hi Hal, > > On 09/22, Hal Finkel wrote: > > Hi, Johannes, > > > > Thanks for writing this. I certainly think you have the right idea in terms > > of the desired end state and modular design. > > Thanks for the feedback! > > > > On 09/19/2017 07:33 PM, Johannes Doerfert wrote: >

I just checkout release_38 branches of llvm, clang and polly and built it on and x86 Ubuntu with cmake: CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE="Debug" CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX="$HOME/toolchain/install/llvm-3.8" LLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="X86" cmake -G "Unix Makefiles" \ -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS="ON" \ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=$CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE \

Hi Hal, 2017-09-21 20:59 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> : > > On 09/12/2017 10:26 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner wrote: > > > > On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 09/11/2017 12:26 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: > > Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael and others, > *...* >

2017-09-21 22:22 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>: > > On 09/22/2017 12:03 AM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > > Hi Hal, > > > 2017-09-21 20:59 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > >> >> On 09/12/2017 10:26 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via