similar to: [LLVMdev] choice between SSAPRE and bitvector aporach

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:38 AM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 2, 2008, at 10:11 PM, Xuehai Qian wrote: > > Hi LLVMers, > > I am a PHD student in CS dept in UIUC, I am doing a project for > > Vikram's course, it is about PRE. I would like to know why you didn't > > choose SSAPRE in LLVM, since it seems to be more suitable for

On Apr 4, 2008, at 4:51 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:38 AM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Apr 2, 2008, at 10:11 PM, Xuehai Qian wrote: >>> Hi LLVMers, >>> I am a PHD student in CS dept in UIUC, I am doing a project for >>> Vikram's course, it is about PRE. I would like to know why you >>>

On Apr 2, 2008, at 10:11 PM, Xuehai Qian wrote: > Hi LLVMers, > I am a PHD student in CS dept in UIUC, I am doing a project for > Vikram's course, it is about PRE. I would like to know why you didn't > choose SSAPRE in LLVM, since it seems to be more suitable for LLVM (it > can operate directly on SSA form and avoid the conversion between SSA > and bit-vector). Can

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Vikram S. Adve <vadve at cs.uiuc.edu> wrote: > On Apr 4, 2008, at 4:51 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:38 AM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> On Apr 2, 2008, at 10:11 PM, Xuehai Qian wrote: > >>> Hi LLVMers, > >>> I am a PHD student in CS dept in UIUC,

On Apr 4, 2008, at 8:28 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Vikram S. Adve <vadve at cs.uiuc.edu> > wrote: >> >> >> Dan, >> >> Doesn't the paper also assume the invariant that phi operands are >> effectively dead after the Phi, which is true right after SSA is >> constructed, but potentially not after

i wish to develop llvm SSAPRE compiler optimization for my engineering academic project .for,that i have a sample c++ program and its .ll file.anyone have SSAPRE implementation in c++. if anyone have, please give me that implementation immediately. joseykollam at gmail.com josey @ 9895685353 elw technologies cochin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 6:41 AM, josey's...JJ frm kollam nw @ calicut.... <joseykollam at gmail.com> wrote: > i wish to develop llvm SSAPRE compiler optimization for my engineering > academic project .for,that i have a sample c++ program and its .ll > file.anyone have SSAPRE implementation in c++. if anyone have, please give > me that implementation immediately. In the old

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Christopher Wood <christopherwood07 at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: >> >> As for a "better" way to implement PRE, it depends on what algorithm >> you want to use. If you just want to write a PRE pass, that's easy >> enough without dominance

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > As for a "better" way to implement PRE, it depends on what algorithm > you want to use. If you just want to write a PRE pass, that's easy > enough without dominance frontiers. > I simply want to write a PRE pass to get a better understanding of the transformation. Any tips on where to

Hi Daniel, Thank you for your detailed reply, and thank you for working on GVNPRE. I’d more than happy to test/evaluate it with our benchmark once it is ready. Please let me know if you need any help. Thanks, Taewook From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> Date: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 6:13 PM To: Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> Cc: "llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org"

Hi Daniel, Got it. If that's the case, can I implement it under the guidance of your insights/prototype? I think I can spend more time on implementation. Thanks, Taewook ________________________________ From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 9:41:30 PM To: Taewook Oh Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [NewGVN] Plan for GVNPRE? Of

Hello, In some of our internal benchmarks, I observe that LLVM performs worse than GCC because LLVM fails to perform PRE when GCC can. I hope this problem goes away when NewGVN equipped with PRE, and wonder if anyone has an idea about the status of PRE on top of NewGVN. Thanks! Best, Taewook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Is there a reason this is better than the modified algorithm created by Ferrante? It looks like yours has as bad a worst case time bound in reality. That is, the algorithm runs in O(sum of the size of all the dominance frontiers). http://www.cs.rice.edu/~keith/Embed/dom.pdf See figure 5. It will only touch nodes actually in the dominance frontier. This is what GCC uses. There are actually real

The project SSAPRE is listed in the LLVM website, and the related paper indicated the implementation was almost complete in 2002. Since I do not see the implementation in the current LLVM source base, could anyone provide an update on the status of the project ? Thanks. Xiangyun Kong

Dear all, When I debugged the execution performance of an application using strace, I found there are some system calls like open and stat64 which run faster on XenLinux than the standard Linux. The following is the output of running "strace -c /bin/sh -c /bin/echo foo" on both systems. An open call runs averagely 109 usec on standard Linux but only 41 usecs on XenLinux. An stat64

hello all, i wish to develop llvm ssapre compiler optimization for my engineering academic project .for,that i have a sample c++ program and its .ll file.anyone have ssapre implementation in c++. if anyone have, please give me that implementation immediately. -- joseykollam at gmail.com josey @ 9895685353 elw technologies cochin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment

Message: 6 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 10:46:19 -0400 From: Chad Rosier <chad.rosier at gmail.com<mailto:chad.rosier at gmail.com>> To: llvmdev <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto:llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>> Subject: [LLVMdev] Potential SimplifyCFG optimization; hammock to diamond transformation Message-ID: <CAMo3wbR6x1wBzb17=GrkERV7kvzx2RdpuheFzyxkQEs3BBvKaw at

Dear all, When I compared the performance of some application on both a Xen domU and a standard linux machine (where domU runs on a similar physical mahine), I notice the application runs faster on the domU than on the physical machine. Instrumenting the application code shows the application spends more time on popen() calls on domU than on the physical machine. I wonder if xenlinux does some

On Jan 23, 1:51 pm, Roman Levenstein <romix.l... at googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Doing some profiling of llc, I noticed that some bitvector operations > took longer than usual. Then I noticed that too many copies of > BitVector obejcts are created, even when such operations like &=, ^=, > |= are performed on those bit vectors. > > I looked at the BitVector ADT

It seems the GVNPRE pass has been removed from the main trunk, though it is present in the 2.6 release. From the llvm-commits archive, I found that it was removed  with this checkin: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090928/088214.html "remove the GVNPRE pass. It has been subsumed by the GVN pass." Does the GVN pass optimize all the partial redundancies