similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM and OpenMP

On Nov 27, 2007, at 4:48 AM, Pertti Kellomäki wrote: > I am involved in a project where one of the aims is to > study the effects of different parallelization strategies > on efficiency, power consumption etc. The idea is to > do automated design space exploration by varying some > parameters (e.g. number of tasks) and measuring their effect. > > Since we are already using

Hi, Pertti Kellomäki wrote: > Since we are already using LLVM for other purposes, we thought > about using LLVM for analysis and then OpenMP for compilation. > The idea was to use the LLVM back end to spit out C code with > OpenMP directives. However, looking at the C code that llc > produces, it seems that this might be a non-starter, as loops > have already been turned into

Hi Reid, I'll write a separate post about the intrinsics, but just a quick note about the CFLAGS issue. Reid Spencer kirjoitti: > On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 15:29 +0200, Pertti Kellomäki wrote: >> Another related thing is that even when I defined -emit-llvm in >> what I thought would be a global CFLAGS for all of newlib, it did >> not get propagated to all subdirectories.

This came up when trying to compile the Python bindings against llvm 1.7. File include/llvm/Transforms/Scalar.h declares llvm::createPREPass(), which does not seem to be implemented anywhere. Should I report this in llvmbugs? -- Pertti

On 15.10.2008, at 14.01, Pertti Kellomäki wrote: > Tatu Vaajalahti wrote: >> With this program llvm-gcc -O2 optimizes test2 away even though it's >> address is taken in program (gcc-4.2 does not, neither does llvm-gcc >> with -O or -O0): >> >> >> #include <stdio.h> >> >> static const char test1 = 'x'; >> static const char

Hi I wanted to know the status of OpenMP (or in general auto parallelization) support in LLVM. I read some threads discussing about possible effort in that direction in 3.1 onwards, but did not see any further discussion on that. If someone in the list knows the updated info or can point me to any useful info, that would be useful. Thanks Regards Prakash Raghavendra -------------- next part

Pertti Kellomäki wrote: > This came up when trying to compile the Python bindings > against llvm 1.7. File include/llvm/Transforms/Scalar.h > declares llvm::createPREPass(), which does not seem to > be implemented anywhere. Should I report this in llvmbugs? Just to clarify myself: this is an issue with the LLVM sources, not with the Python bindings. -- Pertti

Tatu Vaajalahti wrote: > On 15.10.2008, at 14.01, Pertti Kellomäki wrote: >> Seems to me that it is perfectly legitimate for the compiler to fold >> the two char constants together. > True, but note that it is the address of a variable that is used, not > the value. I don't have the C standard handy, but I would be somewhat surprised if the standard would explicitly

I am having a strange problem with loop unrolling. Attached is a small example that demonstrates what happens. There is a for-loop with a known trip count, and some control flow inside the loop. If the condition of the control flow only depends on the loop index and loop invariant variables, the loop is not unrolled. However, if the condition involves potentially loop variant variables, the loop

I gave a short presentation on LLVM for a couple of people here, and they had questions I could not immediately answer. The questions are rather obvious, so I'm hoping that someone has already found out the answers. So here we go: 1) What is the relative size of LLVM bitcode files and the corresponding native binaries? Are there significant differences between targets (e.g. x86, ARM,

On 07/04/2012 10:35 AM, Raghavendra, Prakash wrote: > Hi > > I wanted to know the status of OpenMP (or in general auto > parallelization) support in > > LLVM. > > I read some threads discussing about possible effort in that direction > in 3.1 onwards, > > but did not see any further discussion on that. > > If someone in the list knows the updated info or can

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-1] Pertti Kellom�ki wrote: > Aside from stuff that depends on system headers, are there any other > dependencies on the host system? In other words, will llvm-gcc produce > exactly the same byte code for a given set of source files regardless of > where compilation takes place? This has obvious implications on Yes. Many aspects of the target compiler

Pertti Kellomäki schrieb: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> Many aspects of the target compiler can leak through. > > So if one wants to use the LLVM system as a cross compiler, one > has to configure llvm-gcc as a cross compiler? Fair enough, I guess. I hope the C backend is still meant to generate portable code though. Philipp

On Nov 29, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Wojciech Matyjewicz wrote: > As you have noticed, loops aren't represented directly in the LLVM IR. > However, there are analysis passes which may be helpful to > "reconstruct" > them. For example: LoopInfo pass detects natural loops (as sets of > basic > blocks) and ScalarEvolution pass finds loop induction variables (and >

I managed to compile newlib with llvm-gcc yesterday. That is, the machine independent part is now basically done, and the syscall part contains no-op stubs provided by libgloss. I haven't tested the port yet, but since newlib has already been ported to many architectures, I would be pretty surprised if there were any major problems. A couple of things I noticed when configuring newlib for

Devang Patel wrote: > Right now, one big missing piece in this puzzle is - dependence > analysis. Right. I was only trying to say that it shouldn't be very difficult to find these for/do loops which are interesting from the parallelization perspective (in general, not all for/do loops can be reconstructed). As for the dependence analysis, I need this piece for my project, and I am

We are working on a backend for an ILP architecture, and at some point we would like to do some sort of region scheduling. To support region formation, we need to collect profiling information. I took a look at the bitcode interpreter, and it is fairly trivial to make it collect profiling data Our target is an ASIP for embedded applications, so it would typically be simulated during software

Chris Lattner wrote: > Many aspects of the target compiler can leak through. So if one wants to use the LLVM system as a cross compiler, one has to configure llvm-gcc as a cross compiler? Fair enough, I guess. > One trivial example is: > > int X = sizeof(long); So I assume this also means that while getelementptr insulates llvm byte code from the details of target specific address

Am Montag, den 12.05.2008, 09:08 -0700 schrieb Devang Patel: > On May 12, 2008, at 2:59 AM, Pertti Kellomäki wrote: > > > 2) What is the relative performance of code generated by LLVM > > and gcc respectively? > > See llvm.org/nightlytest Which does not compare GCC vs. LLVM. (I haven't seen this announced as the nightly tester's purpose either.) > Many

On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 22:56:50 -0700 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Oct 1, 2012, at 10:37 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > > On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:26:54 -0700 > > Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> On Oct 1, 2012, at 6:16 PM, greened at obbligato.org wrote: > >>