similar to: [LLVMdev] Requiring a pass to run before/after a pass? (Adding PHIs and updating uses)

On Oct 16, 2008, at 8:29 AM, Edward Lee wrote: > Is there a simple way to require a pass, e.g., Reg2Mem/Mem2Reg, to > run before/after my transformation pass? Or do I do something like: One simplest way is to handle this is to add these passes around your pass in the pass manager. pm.add(Reg2Mem) pm.add(MyPass) pm.add(Mem2Reg) > > > struct myOpt { > myOpt() { >

Hello! I am trying to create an R optimization routine for a task that's currently being done using Excel (lots of tables, formulas, and Solver). However, otpim seems to be finding a local minimum. Example data, functions, and comparison with the solution found in Excel are below. I am not experienced in optimizations so thanks a lot for your advice! Dimitri ### 2 Inputs:

Hi All, I am a newbie to GPU programming. I wonder if anyone can help me with using GPU in .Call in R. Basically, I want to write a function that calcuates the sum of two double type vectors and implement this using GPU. My final goal is to make such an implementation callable from R. (a) First, I wrote a R-C interface handles the R object using .Call (saved as VecAdd_cuda.c

> On Dec 13, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Matthias Braun via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > >> On Dec 13, 2016, at 12:56 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >> >> Given that LLVM has so many auto-registration systems (cl::opt, target registry, pass registry, statistics, I'm sure there's more), maybe we should spend the time to build

> On Dec 13, 2016, at 12:56 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > Given that LLVM has so many auto-registration systems (cl::opt, target registry, pass registry, statistics, I'm sure there's more), maybe we should spend the time to build an auto-registration system that doesn't involve static constructors? I would volunteer to do the work, however this

> On Dec 13, 2016, at 3:23 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Dec 13, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Matthias Braun via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> >>> On Dec 13, 2016, at 12:56 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >>> >>> Given that LLVM has so many auto-registration systems

On Oct 28, 2007, at 10:38 PM, Warren Armstrong wrote: > Greetings, > > I have a plan to use LLVM to undertake runtime optimisation of > computational chemistry programs. Ok. > As part of this, I'd like to be able > to invoke lli and pass it a list of passes to run, in the manner of > opt. For example: > >> lli -load=llvm/mem_trace_pass/bin/lib/hello.so -hello

Thanks for the reply! Unfortunately, that seems to have the same effect as setting llvm::TimePassesIsEnabled myself, and all my same problems still apply as the TimingInfo's destructor (PassManager.cpp) is still never called. Running it in the debugger shows that TimerGroup's removeTimer method is never called, nor is it's destructor (but it's constructor is). On Wed, Jun 1, 2011

I got it working with this: int argc = 2; const char *argv[2] = {"myopt", "-time-passes"}; cl::ParseCommandLineOptions(argc, (char **)argv, "my optimizer"); On 06/01/2011 01:19 PM, Michael Ilseman wrote: > I have some PassManagers, and I would like to output timing data for > how long each pass takes to execute with a separate

Greetings, I have a plan to use LLVM to undertake runtime optimisation of computational chemistry programs. As part of this, I'd like to be able to invoke lli and pass it a list of passes to run, in the manner of opt. For example: > lli -load=llvm/mem_trace_pass/bin/lib/hello.so -hello ./my_bitcode.bc The current implementation of lli (updated from SVN as of three nights ago)

Given that LLVM has so many auto-registration systems (cl::opt, target registry, pass registry, statistics, I'm sure there's more), maybe we should spend the time to build an auto-registration system that doesn't involve static constructors? It needs custom code for every supported object file format, and is hard to get right when DSOs are involved, but in the long run it's

Oh, you probably also need to create a static llvm_shutdown_obj. On 06/01/2011 02:19 PM, Michael Ilseman wrote: > Thanks for the reply! Unfortunately, that seems to have the same > effect as setting llvm::TimePassesIsEnabled myself, and all my same > problems still apply as the TimingInfo's destructor (PassManager.cpp) > is still never called. Running it in the debugger shows that

I have some PassManagers, and I would like to output timing data for how long each pass takes to execute with a separate application using the API, rather than through an llvm tool. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble seeing how to use the existing facilities without using opt. Setting llvm::TimePassesIsEnabled before creating the PassManagers doesn't seem to output anything, though it is

Hey Andy > One easy pattern to follow is to register the option during pass initialization with all the convenient flags and parameters, but refer to a globally defined option storage that enforces the singleton and provides visibility. As long as pass initialization happens before parseCommandLine, usage should be consistent. > > Strawman: > > cl::optval<bool> MyOption; //

> On Dec 13, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Dec 13, 2016, at 3:23 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Dec 13, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Matthias Braun via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>

Hi, I noticed that if you create a switch with multiple cases going to the same destination, then if that destination contains phis you need to add the incoming value an equivalent number of times. The attached code seems wrong, but it compiles as correct, and removing the duplicated incoming node causes an error. Is this expected? Cheers, Gary -- http://gbenson.net/ -------------- next part

On Aug 27, 2008, at 3:37 AM, Gary Benson wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed that if you create a switch with multiple cases going to > the same destination, then if that destination contains phis you > need to add the incoming value an equivalent number of times. The > attached code seems wrong, but it compiles as correct, and removing > the duplicated incoming node causes an error.

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: > After phi elimination we have: > > bb134: > %reg1645 = 1.0 > > bb74: > %reg1176 = MOVAPS %reg1645 > %reg1177 = MOVAPS %reg1646 > [...] > > bb108: > %reg1645 = <expr> > %reg1646 = %reg1176 I find it a little strange that the IMPLICIT_DEF disappears. Besides that, it

On Monday 02 February 2009 13:14, Evan Cheng wrote: > I am sorry I don't really follow it. Is this what you are describing? > > %v1177 = undef > ... > loop: > ... > %v1176 = op ... > = %v1177 > %v1177 = %v1176 > jmp loop > > Why is not safe to coalesce the 2 registers? Not quite. The original code is: %v1177 = undef %v1645 = ... loop:

On Monday 02 February 2009 14:29, Evan Cheng wrote: > On Feb 2, 2009, at 12:12 PM, David Greene wrote: > > On Monday 02 February 2009 13:14, Evan Cheng wrote: > >> I am sorry I don't really follow it. Is this what you are describing? > >> > >> %v1177 = undef > >> ... > >> loop: > >> ... > >> %v1176 = op ... > >>