similar to: [LLVMdev] is this code really JITed and/or optimized ? ..

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004, Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > (thanks to Reid, who gave nice advice) the fibonacci function code > works now. Please find attached file. > > but... the performance is adequate, say, for byte-code > interpretation mode and not for optimized JITing. > fibonacci function of 35 from attached file is more > then 100 times slower then the following code compiled

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > That's pretty cute actually. Do you want this "brilliant" :) example in the cvs > repository? I'd be happy to put it in. Here's an idea: how about we take the ModuleMaker, Valery's previous example, and this one and put them all in one "small examples" project? -Chris > Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > >

Valery, That's pretty cute actually. Do you want this "brilliant" :) example in the cvs repository? I'd be happy to put it in. Reid. Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > Hi LLVMers, > > the example attached I have used to prove that JIT and some visible > optimizations are really invoked. > > Proved OK. I got 30% speed-up in comparison to gcc 3.3.3 >

On second thought, the makefiles don't (easily) allow this do they? You can only build one program per directory. Were you suggesting that you wanted me to move the entire directories under a "small examples" directory? Reid. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > > >>That's pretty cute actually. Do you want this

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > On second thought, the makefiles don't (easily) allow this do they? You can > only build one program per directory. Were you suggesting that you wanted me to > move the entire directories under a "small examples" directory? You're right. The simples way to do this would be to have: projects/ SmallExamples/

Hi LLVMers, the example attached I have used to prove that JIT and some visible optimizations are really invoked. Proved OK. I got 30% speed-up in comparison to gcc 3.3.3 on my Athlon XP 1500. Nice. P.S. guys, no fears, I don't plan to flood the cvs repository with my "brilliant" examples ;) --- Valery A.Khamenya -------------- next part -------------- An

> If it's that slow, you're probably getting the interpreter instead of the > JIT. Try adding -print-machineinstr to the command line, or -debug, and > see what happens. If you're not getting the JIT, try stepping through the > LLVM program to see where it makes the execution engine and decides which > one to use... (thanks for quick reply) hm, here is the part of my

Hola LLVMers, I'm getting a crash when using ConstantFP::get. I can repro it by adding one line to the Fibonacci example program: int main(int argc, char **argv) { int n = argc > 1 ? atol(argv[1]) : 24; // Create some module to put our function into it. Module *M = new Module("test"); // We are about to create the "fib" function: Function

It's in debug. I'm having a look at the assembler it's producing right now and it's definitely a little odd for what should be a simple assignment in zeroSignificand. ________________________________ From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Dale Johannesen Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 2:39 PM To: LLVM Developers Mailing

Hello Se'bastien, > I'm not sure to correctly understand what you mean, but I interpret it > as LLVM deciding where the code should be executed, like some > load-balancing strategy. in this particular example it was really like that. However I've tried to emphasize as well, that a decision "where to execute" is strongly connected with LLVM optimizations, which

On Sep 5, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Chuck Rose III wrote: > Hola LLVMers, > > > > I’m getting a crash when using ConstantFP::get. > > > > I can repro it by adding one line to the Fibonacci example program: > > > > int main(int argc, char **argv) { > > int n = argc > 1 ? atol(argv[1]) : 24; > > > > // Create some module to put our function

Hi Valery, Valery A.Khamenya wrote: >>To me this appears more as an algorithmic design issue, this function >>could be rewritten in "continuation passing style", and each >>continuation could be distributed by a load-balancing strategy to the >>computers sharing CPU resources. Using mechanisms such as "futures" (as >>in Mozart) allows to do

> My $0.02 worth on this topic .. and again |0.02 of mein :-) > However, I find it unreasonable to expect LLVM to provide > any features in this area. In order to do anything meaningful, > LLVM would have to have some kind of awareness of networks > (typically an operating system concern). > That seems at odds with the "low level" principles of LLVM. When I

Hello Valery, I have some comments regarding your thoughts on LLVM support for distributed computing. Valery A.Khamenya wrote: >There should be an engine and layer for making dispatching optimizations in run-time. If one CPU is loaded and code is >"parallelizable" why then not to send some part of >calculation to other CPU? This kind of on-fly decision will >be one day

Hola Dale, I spent some time walking through what's going on with a friend of mine from VStudio. Category is given 2 bits in the APFloat class definition. It's sign extending the enum value for the comparisons when it loads it out of the class, so the 2 becomes a -2 and the comparison fails. He sent me a piece of code which I might be able to use to force the issue. I'll update

Dear all, I have an implementation of streams in R. The current implementation of delay() and force() is inspired from the LISP implementation found in Part VI "Languages for AI problem solving" of "Artificial Intelligence" by G. Luger. I have tested it with the Fibonacci example in the same book (see examples below). It works but I do run into a problem when I try to

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > the example attached I have used to prove that JIT and some visible > optimizations are really invoked. > > Proved OK. I got 30% speed-up in comparison to gcc 3.3.3 > on my Athlon XP 1500. Cool! Hey Valery, before we add this to the CVS repo, can you take a look at some of the changes I made to your HowToUseJIT example and

Hi, I'm learning Fortran and trying to load a Fortran subroutine into R. I've done: R SHLIB Fibonacci.f and it compiled fine. Then I went into R and done: > dyn.load("Fibonacci.so") > Fib <- function(n) { + .Fortran("Fibonacci", + as.integer(n))[[1]] + } > Fib(5) Error in .Fortran("Fibonacci", as.integer(n)) :

When I compile my C fibonacci example fib.c with 'clang -O3 -c -emit-llvm -o fib-clang.bc fib.c&& llvm-dis fib-clang.bc' I get fib-clang.ll that has some degree of inlining in it. But when I get an equivalent to fib.c file fib.ll and run it through opt with the command 'llvm-as fib.ll&& opt -O3 fib.bc -o fib-opt.bc&& llvm-dis fib-opt.bc' resulting

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004, Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > hm, here is the part of my code starting LLVM function: > > /////////////////////////// > ExistingModuleProvider* MP = new ExistingModuleProvider(M); > ExecutionEngine* EE = ExecutionEngine::create( MP, true ); As Reid pointed out, changing true to false will get it to work. > // Call the `foo' function with no