similar to: [Polly] Reduced code analyzability moving from LLVM 3.9.0 to 5.0.1

Hi, Recently I was looking at the potential of optimizing through Polly. The code that I am trying to optimize [1] adjusts a picture's colors to get an Instagram-like effect. To improve code analyzability on LLVM 3.9.0, I made the following changes: - Improve SCoP detection through -polly-process-unprofitable - Enable outer loop vectorization through -polly-vectorizer=stripmine, disabling

On Sat, May 6, 2017, at 04:28 PM, llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org wrote: > The Buildbot has detected a failed build on builder polly-amd64-linux > while building polly. > Full details are available at: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/polly-amd64-linux/builds/6539 > > Buildbot URL: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/ > > Buildslave for this Build: grosser1 > > Build

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 \

Does it happen due to loop carried dependence? if yes what is the solution to vectorize such codes? please reply. i m waiting. On Jul 1, 2017 12:30 PM, "hameeza ahmed" <hahmed2305 at gmail.com> wrote: > I even tried polly but still my llvm IR does not contain vector > instructions. i used the following command; > > clang -S -emit-llvm stencil.c -march=knl -O3

Hello, I am trying to vectorize following stencil code; #include <stdio.h> #define N 100351 // This function computes 2D-5 point Jacobi stencil void stencil(int a[restrict][N]) { int i, j, k; for (k = 0; k < 100; k++) { for (i = 1; i <= N-2; i++) { for (j = 1; j <= N-2; j++) { a[i][j] = 0.25 * (a[i][j] + a[i-1][j] + a[i+1][j] + a[i][j-1] +

I am able to vectorize it with the following code; #include <stdio.h> #define N 100351 // This function computes 2D-5 point Jacobi stencil void stencil(int a[][N], int b[][N]) { int i, j, k; for (k = 0; k < N; k++) { for (i = 1; i <= N-2; i++) for (j = 1; j <= N-2; j++) b[i][j] = 0.25 * (a[i][j] + a[i-1][j] + a[i+1][j] + a[i][j-1] + a[i][j+1]); for

Hi Tobias, could we use information about memory accesses of a SCoP statement and def-use chains to determine statements, which don’t contain matrix multiplication of the following form? for (int i = 0; i < Upper Bound1; i++) for (int j = 0; j < Upper Bound2; j++) for (int k = 0; k < Upper Bound3; j++) C[i][j] += A[i][k] * B[k][j] We could probably check that memory access

<div> </div><div> </div><div>Hello,</div><div> </div><div>To me this is an issue in llvm loop vectorizer (if N is large enough to prevent complete unrolling of j-loop).</div><div> </div><div>Woud you mind to share stencil.ll than I would say more definitely what the issue

On 05/17/2016 01:47 PM, Michael Kruse wrote: > 2016-05-16 19:52 GMT+02:00 Roman Gareev <gareevroman at gmail.com>: >> Hi Tobias, >> >> could we use information about memory accesses of a SCoP statement and >> def-use chains to determine statements, which don’t contain matrix >> multiplication of the following form? > > Assuming s/don't/do you want

Your problem is due to GVN partial reduction elimination (PRE) which introduces a PHI node the current loop vectorizer cannot handle: opt -O3 stencil.ll -pass-remarks=loop-vectorize -pass-remarks-missed=loop-vectorize -pass-remarks-analysis=loop-vectorize remark: <unknown>:0:0: loop not vectorized: value that could not be identified as reduction is used outside the loop remark:

Dear community, the next step of the "Improvement of vectorization process in Polly" project is to implement the packing transformation described in http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/flame/pubs/TOMS-BLIS-Analytical.pdf. I had a discussion with Tobias and we decided that a packing transformation is in many ways a data-layout transformation that will require to introduce a new array, copy

Michael, [Sorry that I don't have you in To:. I don't have your addr that I can use since I'm replying through digest.] I'm also sorry that I'm not commenting on the main part of your RFC in this reply. I just want to focus on one thing here. Proposed Loop Optimization Framework ------------------------------------

On 07/02/2015 04:44 PM, David Keaton wrote: > On 07/02/2015 03:17 AM, Kuperstein, Michael M wrote: >> You want to redefine ["won't break the program"], by specifying a new >> abstract machine, which is >> more conservative than standard C/C++. The proper way to do that would, >> I believe, be to work towards setting up a working group within the >>

Please do the bisect, nice to hear it recently worked! At this point I built mean with debug and its failing with initializing a LFStack doing an atomic operation, IIRC. On Sun, Sep 11, 2016, 9:09 AM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 7 September 2016 at 18:41, Wink Saville via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Further more, there is a

I've looked at the version of libc I have and its 2.24: $ /lib/libc.so.6 GNU C Library (GNU libc) stable release version 2.24, by Roland McGrath et al. I then cloned the gcc 2.24 sources as of today and the code that 24e2b1cede1952d7d4411a3cafd25dd8593dab9f reverts is still there. I also took a quick look at the Arch Linux glibc package

+Sylvestre who knows about these things. On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Kris van Rens via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > L.S., > > I'm currently in the process of creating Debian packages for > clang/llvm release 3.9.0. For this I'm using the steps as explained on > 'http://apt.llvm.org/building-pkgs.php'. Up until now I have done: > > $

Hi folks, I'm still using MCJIT (I know, I know), and I spotted a crash in exception handling when I moved from llvm 3.8 to llvm 3.9. I traced it back to EH frames not being deregistered due to a (typo?) mistake in RTDyldMemoryManager.cpp: void deregisterEHFrames(uint8_t *Addr, uint64_t LoadAddr, size_t Size) override { * registerEHFramesInProcess(Addr, Size);* } ..I overrode the

If you are on glibc-2.24, did you patch it with the fix 24e2b1cede1952d7d4411a3cafd25dd8593dab9f that revert commits 80f87443eed17838fe453f1f5406ccf5d3698c25 and a824d609581d5ee7544aabcbbc70e8da44b2b5b6? I had to do that since it broke go, gcc, and clang address sanitizers without the patch. On 9/12/16, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 11 September

Hi, Here is the proposed release schedule for the 5.0.1 release: October 22, 2017 RC1 November 15, 2017 Merge Request Deadline November 22, 2017 Merge Deadline /RC2 December 1, 2017 5.0.1-final Instructions for submitting merge requests can be found here: http://llvm.org/docs/HowToReleaseLLVM.html#merge-requests If there are no objections, I will be adding this schedule to the website soon.

Greetings, All: I am trying to build llvm-5.0.1 on Solaris 10/Sparc with gcc-5.4.0 as follows. cmake -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="Sparc" /home/nemo/opt/llvm/llvm-5.0.1-src I then invoke gmake and the build trundles along and stops as follows. [ 62%] Building CXX object lib/ObjectYAML/CMakeFiles/LLVMObjectYAML.dir/MachOYAML.cpp.o