similar to: [GSOC 2018] Implement a single updater class for Dominators

Hi Kuba, Thanks for your advice in your previous letter. During last week, I have read the documents on Doxygen and the source code of the DomTreeBase/DomTree/PostDomTree/DeferredDominance class, I believe now I have a much better understanding on the relationship between these classes and how DeferredDominance class performs lazy updates. I have also learnt the current usage and drawbacks of

Hi Chijun, Thanks for your interest in the project. I have gone through most of the LLVM Kaleidoscope tutorial and I have > watched the video of the presentation “Dominator Trees and incremental > updates that transcend time” presented on the 2017 LLVM Developers’ > Meeting. I have also started to understand the algorithm mentioned in > the comments of the code related to the

Hi Kuba, Thanks for your clarification on the project in the previous letter. I have submitted a proposal draft at the GSoC website, the draft has been shared with the LLVM organization. I will appreciate it if you can give me some advice on the proposal. This draft can be viewed by the organization. (If you do not have access, please mail me, and I will give you the link.) I am looking forward

Hi Kuba, Thanks for your feedback. I have made some improvements on the proposal according to your feedback and clarify something on the time availability. I left comments on the questions you asked in the doc. Please check it out. Thanks, Chijun 2018-03-22 10:37 GMT+08:00 Jakub (Kuba) Kuderski <kubakuderski at gmail.com>: > Hi Chijun, > > I left you my feedback in the doc (+

Hi Chijun, Great, seems like you did a lot of progress and understand the issues quite well! I have done some early sketch on the API of the new updater class. > From my current understanding, to solve the fragmentation problem of > the API, the new class first, need to maintain the DomTree and > PostDomTree class and deprecate the DefferredDominance class. > There are a couple of

Hi Chijun, I left you my feedback in the doc (+ some nitpicks). Overall, it looks very solid and shows you understand the problem well and know what to expect. Your proposed timeline is reasonable and I don't see any major things to improve there. Don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions related to my comments (either here or in the document). Thanks, Kuba On Wed, Mar 21,

Hello, I’m an undergraduate student studying CS in the South China University of Technology. I have been using clang compiler and related tools since I started studying C++ and I would like to work on LLVM in this year’s GSoC. I am interested in “Implement a single updater class for Dominators”. [1] I have achieved a bronze medal in the 2017 ACM-ICPC Asia Xian Regional Contest [2] (being a

Hi folks, For the past month I’ve been working on improving the DominatorTree and PostDominatorTree in LLVM. The RFC that explains the motivations and plans can be found here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-June/114045.html . Here’s a short summary of what changed upstream since posting it: - We switched from the Simple Lengauer-Tarjan algorithm for computing dominators

Hi Tobias, 1) Daniel and Chandler have for a long time been talking about computing > dominance and post-dominance in one shot to reduce the cost of > post-dominance and make it (freely) available everywhere. Is this > covered by your current (or planned) work? I'm not sure what you exactly mean by one shot; I'll ask around tomorrow. I wanted to play a little bit with your

Hi folks, This summer I'm working on improving dominators during my internship at Google. Below is an RFC on switching to dynamic dominators, which you can also read as a Google Doc <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wPYeWykeO51YDPLYQEg4KNTlDIGIdyF65OTfhSMaNHQ/edit?usp=sharing> if you prefer so. Please let us know what you think. ~Kuba

Btw, here is another interesting paper about post-dominators and control dependence: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cbb2/9a0e4895025bd9df24f9263217df12f1ed1e.pdf I think a great outcome of your internship would be some precise documentation regarding the guarantees the LLVM dominators give -- possibly also considering classic and weak control dependence and the difference between

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jingyue Wu" <jingyue at google.com> > To: "songlh" <songlh at cs.wisc.edu>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:50:12 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] how to choose which alias analysis used in my pass? > > > Isn't -basicaa the default alias analysis already? No, -basicaa is added

Hello all, I came across the code of Verifier, and see that it doesn't modify the IR at all. Why it is not considered as an analysis pass? Actually, this will have impact on debugify-each and print-before/after-all: we are not supposed to print/debugify Verifier pass, but since Verifier is declared as a transformation (well, a non-analysis) pass, we actually do print/debugify it. Thanks for

I was trying the new feature you introduce about printing out the graphs, so I updated my version of llvm/clang/polly synchronizing them to the last version, but I get this error launching clang (also , I recently switched to MacOS X for development): $ clang not_so_simple_loop.c -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang ${PATH_TO_POLLY_LIB}/LLVMPolly.dylib -mllvm -enable-polly-viewer -mllvm -enable-iv-rewrite

I add also the output of these commands: [hades at artemis examples]$ ./compile_ex.sh super_simple_loop Printing analysis 'Polly - Detect Scops in functions' for function 'main': [hades at artemis examples]$ modifying it in : #include <stdio.h> int main() { int A[1024]; int j, k=10; for (j = 0; j < 1024; j++) A[j] = k;

On 10/22/2011 08:41 AM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: > I was trying the new feature you introduce about printing out the > graphs, so I updated my version of llvm/clang/polly synchronizing them > to the last version, but I get this error launching clang (also , I > recently switched to MacOS X for development): > > $ clang not_so_simple_loop.c -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang >

On 10/07/2011 03:43 PM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: > 2011/10/7 Marcello Maggioni<hayarms at gmail.com>: >> Hi, >> >> for example this loop: >> >> #include<stdio.h> >> >> int main() >> { >> int A[1024]; >> int j, k=10; >> for (j = 1; j< 1024; j++) >> A[j] =

Tobias, Thanks for taking the time to summarize all this. It's a great writeup. I'm moving the thread to llvm-dev. My responses below. On May 21, 2012, at 5:06 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > First of all some information about the RegionInfo pass: > > ======================================================================= > The very first paper I

On Dec 7, 2007, at 1:43 AM, Wojciech Matyjewicz wrote: > Recently, I was looking into the bug #1227. I wanted to check if > reordering optimization passes could solve it. To start with, I > tried to > reproduce the output of llvm-g++ -O3 using the combination of llvm-g++ > -O0 and opt with the appropriate passes. However, I was unable to. I > use > SVN versions of llvm and

Hi, Recently, I was looking into the bug #1227. I wanted to check if reordering optimization passes could solve it. To start with, I tried to reproduce the output of llvm-g++ -O3 using the combination of llvm-g++ -O0 and opt with the appropriate passes. However, I was unable to. I use SVN versions of llvm and llvm-gcc-4.2. First, I compile example.cpp (attached; taken from the bug #1227) with: $