similar to: [LLVMdev] Issues with IPO optimization passes and JIT

No, seriously: I've had more than one person at work wonder what math toolset could be loaded onto iOS. So, before Matlab, FreeMat, Mathematia, SciLab, Octave, or numpy (:-) ) produces a version for iPad, any chance someone is working on R for iPad?

Hi, I want a way to traffic shape pppoe encapsulated pkts based on its src/dst Ip address. Is there any way I can mark pppoe encapsulated pkts? Samit

Hi, Are there any other forums on R where I can get quick responses to my questions? I've lot of questions as I am learning the basics and exploring advanced computational functions and it is tough to wait for moderator approval then a reply to each of those questions. thanks! Samit -- View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/R-forum-tp2298103p2298103.html Sent from the R

Hi all, A new member and new post. Is it possible to manage bandwidth marking the packets based on VLAN tags using ebtables? Samit

The pass is pretty rudimental (as the comment at the top of the file hints), and it seems LLVM already has IPSCCP (which should do a better job at interprocedural constant propagation). I'm also not entirely sure it's used anywhere. Is there any reason to keep it around? Thanks, -- Davide "There are no solved problems; there are only problems that are more or less solved" --

Andy and I briefly discussed this the other day, we have not yet got chance to list a detailed pass order for the pre- and post- IPO scalar optimizations. This is wish-list in our mind: pre-IPO: based on the ordering he propose, get rid of the inlining (or just inline tiny func), get rid of all loop xforms... post-IPO: get rid of inlining, or maybe we still need it, only

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > 3. How to parallelize post-IPO stage > ==================================== > > From 5k' high, the concept is very simple, just to > step 1).divide the merged IR into small pieces, > step 2).and compile each of this pieces independendly. > step 3) the objects of each piece

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 7/17/13 12:35 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 3. How to parallelize post-IPO stage >>> ==================================== >>> >>> From 5k'

Sean Silva via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > No tests fail with the patch below, so I would say it's pretty useless. It > seems that the C bindings are the only user but we can probably just have them > return IPSCCP instead. I don't necessarily think your conclusion is wrong, but the patch isn't proving what you think it's proving. In fact, the

On 7/17/13 12:35 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > >> 3. How to parallelize post-IPO stage >> ==================================== >> >> From 5k' high, the concept is very simple, just to >> step 1).divide the merged IR into small pieces, >> step 2).and compile

On Jul 12, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > 6) Miscellaneous > =========== > Will partitioning degrade performance in theory. I think it depends on the definition of > performance. If performance means execution-time, I guess it dose not. > However, if performance includes code-size, I think it may have some negative impact. > Following

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 12, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > > 6) Miscellaneous > =========== > Will partitioning degrade performance in theory. I think it depends on > the definition of > performance. If performance means execution-time, I guess it dose not. >

On Jul 14, 2013, at 6:38 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: >> >> On Jul 12, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 6) Miscellaneous >> =========== >> Will partitioning degrade performance in theory. I think it

Hi, Is there a tutorial on how to get started with writing link-time optimization passes? The documentation at http://www.llvm.org/docs/LinkTimeOptimization.html explains the design of the LTO interface, but does not explain where to start writing code. Would my pass go inside libLTO.a or is it separate from libLTO.a? What I would like to be able to do is traverse through the entire

On 12 July 2013 15:49, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, There: > > This is the proposal for parallelizing post-ipo stage. See the following > for details. > > I also attach a toy-grade rudimentary implementation. This > implementation can be > used to illustrate some concepts here. This patch is not going to be > committed. > >

Hi, I found an existing pass "CalledValuePropagation" that can solve the problem I raised a few days ago regarding the "callees" metadata ( https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/llvm-dev/yjtZVMH_aC4). Now I have difficulty in calling this pass in my own pass. In my own pass, I called "getAnalysis<CalledValuePropagationPass>()" and in the

On Jul 17, 2013, at 4:29 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/17/13 4:12 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: >> On Jul 14, 2013, at 7:07 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: >>> The partitioning should be deterministic. It’s just that the linker output now depends on the partitioning heuristics. As long that decision is based on the input (not the

On Jul 14, 2013, at 7:07 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > The partitioning should be deterministic. It’s just that the linker output now depends on the partitioning heuristics. As long that decision is based on the input (not the host system), then it still meets Eric’s requirements. I just think it’s unfortunate that post-IPO partitioning (or more generally, parallel

On 7/16/13 5:23 AM, Evan Cheng wrote: > Thanks for the proposal. This is important work which is one step towards making LTO more applicable for large applications. Some comments inline. > > On Jul 12, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> 3.1.1 Figure out Partition scheme >> ---------------------------------- >> we

On 7/17/13 4:12 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > On Jul 14, 2013, at 7:07 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com > <mailto:atrick at apple.com>> wrote: >> The partitioning should be deterministic. It’s just that the linker >> output now depends on the partitioning heuristics. As long that >> decision is based on the input (not the host system), then it still