similar to: (no 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 release (and

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

Thanks Tobias, I am really looking forward to trying out the true integrated Polly and I hope to provide good positive feedback. Since I am maintaining an "out of tree" target, I generally update on each release - I call it the Big Bang update because of the difficulties this presents. At the moment our target is based on the v5.0.0 sources, and I hope to update to the v6.0.0 sources

[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 Hal,  Thanks for the very detailed email. I followed the ongoing discussion about moving ISL and Polly from a subproject of LLVM into the LLVM library. I was not convinced by the arguments in the threads. I believe that the potential benefits of the change that you are trying to make are not proportional to the high cost for the rest of the users of the compiler library. Traditional compiler

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

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

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

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 everyone,As you may know, stock LLVM does not provide the kind of advanced loop transformations necessary to provide good performance on many applications. LLVM's Polly project provides many of the required capabilities, including loop transformations such as fission, fusion, skewing, blocking/tiling, and interchange, all powered by state-of-the-art dependence analysis. Polly also

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

> 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: >>> >>>

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

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of Hal Finkel > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 1:35 AM > > I'd like to add that, mostly through Tobi's efforts, we were able to have isl (the > integer set library) on which Polly depends relicensed such that it is now > distributed under the MIT

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, 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

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 Mon, Jan 15, 2018, at 22:10, Philip Pfaffe via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi Micheal, > > thanks for moving this forward! > > 2018-01-15 17:52 GMT+01:00 Michael Kruse via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > > > Dear community, > > > > for our goal to make polyhedral optimization available in the main > > LLVM source, we will need the Integer

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: >

It would be great to get "accurate" dependence analysis from polyhedral framework. Anyone working on making polly into analysis+Transforms framework? -Prashantha -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Sahasrabuddhe, Sameer Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 9:03 AM To: Hal Finkel; Javed Absar Cc: llvmdev at