similar to: Process of integrating Polly into LLVM

On 23 Sep 2017, at 06:19, Tobias Grosser via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: 2) svn copy Polly from its own repo into the LLVM main repository svn mv <polly>/ to <llvm>/tools/polly Hi Tobias, Just a minor point remark: IIUC, in SVN, the different subprojects are all part of the same repository,

[add subject] Dear LLVM community, hope all of you had a good start into 2018 and a quiet branching of LLVM 6.0. With the latest LLVM release out of the way and a longer development phase starting, we would like to restart the process of including Polly and isl into core LLVM to bring changes in early on before the next LLVM release. Short summary: * Today Polly is already part of each LLVM

Hi, On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Actually, I started to copy parts of the ScalarEvolution interface in > order to integrate the analysis passes this way into LLVM > transformations. While it is obviously hard (and probably not useful) to > provide "exactly" the same interface as

Hi Sebastian, thanks for the comments! On 09/27, Sebastian Pop wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Tobias Grosser via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017, at 00:03, Johannes Doerfert wrote: > >> It depends on what you want. If you want a polyhedral scheduler right > >> away, integration is the way to go. > > I

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, > *...* >

Hello, I am new to POLLY. I want to create an LLVM Pass which uses polly dependency analysis. in the new pass 1st i need to call polly Canonicalize pass. then use polly dependency analysis. Or in general how we can integrate llvm existing passes in new pass? How to integrate these in new pass through code? Please help its hard to find things on this.. Regards -------------- next part

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

On 09/22/2017 12:25 AM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > > > 2017-09-21 22:22 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov > <mailto: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 <mailto:llvm-dev at

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 09/13/2017 06:53 AM, C Bergström wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > >> >> On 09/13/2017 02:16 AM, C Bergström wrote: >> >> A completely non-technical point, but what's the current "polly"

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

On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 00:47 +0100, Tobias Grosser wrote: > On 02/06/2012 11:28 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:56 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > >>> If you do not want to use polly, you could use ISL > >>> http://freecode.com/projects/isl to set up the dependence problem and > >>> use ISL's ILP to solve it. > >> > >> isl

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 09/21, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev wrote: > > 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,

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 09/13/2017 02:16 AM, C Bergström wrote: > > 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? > > > Good question. I discussed this explicitly with

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Tobias Grosser via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017, at 00:03, Johannes Doerfert wrote: >> It depends on what you want. If you want a polyhedral scheduler right >> away, integration is the way to go. I think this is the topic of the thread as the folks who started this discussion stated that they want to see

> 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 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: >

On 02/06/2012 11:28 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:56 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: >>> If you do not want to use polly, you could use ISL >>> http://freecode.com/projects/isl to set up the dependence problem and >>> use ISL's ILP to solve it. >> >> isl is an LGPL project. It is not clear to me what the general consensus >> would be on

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

On 03/17/2013 11:54 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hello Tobi, > > I am interested in Polly project. Polly seems to be a very promising tool to find out program parallelization based on LLVM infrastructure. However, I find that Polly analysis and optimization can consume significant compiling time, so I propose a GSoC project to reduce Polly compiling time and I hope my work can make the Polly