similar to: [LLVMdev] What opt pass attempts implements this optimization?

On Oct 6, 2009, at 4:28 PM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > I have a very simple kernel that is generating very very bad code. > > The basic kernel pseudo-code is as follows: > forloop(1 to n) { > forloop(0 to j) { > A > } > B > } > C > > It is generating very ugly and inefficient code for a vector system > similar to the following pseudo-code: > if (n >

I'm trying to get a data.restore function to work on functions. One thing I can't figure out: how do you construct a function from it's component parts? For example, I can construct a for loop as forloop <- as.call(list(as.name('for'),as.name('i'),1,as.call(list(as.name('junk'))))) which results in for (i in 1) junk() But how do I put that in a

What exactly are the standard compile options that are implemented when using -std-compile-opts? The reason I'm asking is it seems that -std-compile-opts creates some CFG graphs that are invalid and should not be created and I am trying to figure out which stage is creating this issue? The input LLVM-ir is in test.ll. The version with no optimizations looks correct, but the one using

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > What exactly are the standard compile options that are implemented when > using -std-compile-opts? > > The reason I'm asking is it seems that -std-compile-opts creates some CFG > graphs that are invalid and should not be created and I am trying to figure > out which stage is creating

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Devang Patel <devang.patel at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jeffrey Yasskin [mailto:jyasskin at google.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 11:09 AM >>> To: Villmow, Micah

Message: 63 Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:28:51 +0000 (UTC) From: Gabor Grothendieck <ggrothendieck at myway.com> Subject: Re: [R] chron: parsing dates into a data frame using a forloop To: r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch Message-ID: <loom.20050126T052153-333 at post.gmane.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Benjamin M. Osborne <Benjamin.Osborne <at> uvm.edu>

Is there a current way to specify that an instruction or function call cannot be duplicated and thus any optimizations that might want to duplicate this instruction would fail? The problem deals with barrier in OpenCL 1.0. One of the conditions of using barrier is that if a barrier exists inside of control flow, every thread in a work-group must execute the barrier instruction(6.11.9).

Here's a small R program: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- a <- rep(1,10000000) system.time(a <- a + 1) system.time(for (i in 1:10000000) {a[i] <- a[i] + 1}) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- and here's its matlab version:

From: metafoo at gmail.com [mailto:metafoo at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Richard Smith Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:30 PM To: Villmow, Micah Cc: Eli Friedman; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] SPIR Portability Discussion On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com<mailto:Micah.Villmow at amd.com>> wrote:

> -----Original Message----- > From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:50 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: Richard Smith; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] SPIR Portability Discussion > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> >

Ahh yep, thanks for catching that, new patch attached. > -----Original Message----- > From: Hal Finkel [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 1:40 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: Developers Mailing List > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]> > > Micah, > > I think that your patch is missing the necessary

> -----Original Message----- > From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:03 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: LLVM Developers Mail > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] FW: RFC: Supporting different sized address space > arithmetic > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> > wrote: > >

I have one data frame with a column of dates and I want to fill another data frame with one column of dates, one of years, one of months, one of a unique combination of year and month, and one of days, but R seems to have some problems with this. My initial data frame looks like this (ignore the NAs in the other fields): > mans[1:10,] date loc snow.new prcp tmin snow.dep tmax 1

> -----Original Message----- > From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:22 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: Richard Smith; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] SPIR Portability Discussion > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> >

> -----Original Message----- > From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:43 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: LLVM Developers Mail > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] FW: RFC: Supporting different sized address space > arithmetic > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> > wrote: > >

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:03 PM >> To: Villmow, Micah >> Cc: LLVM Developers Mail >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] FW: RFC: Supporting different sized address space >>

Most likely this code was added before getSExtOrTruncate was added, but not 100% sure. It seems to assume that no pointer can be more than 64bits in size. > -----Original Message----- > From: Hal Finkel [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov] > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 4:27 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: LLVM Developers Mail > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] FW: RFC: Supporting different sized

Micah, One more thing ;) -- llvm::getEnumName in utils/TableGen/CodeGenTarget.cpp -Hal On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 21:02:02 +0000 "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > Ahh yep, thanks for catching that, new patch attached. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hal Finkel [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 1:40 PM

> -----Original Message----- > From: Villmow, Micah > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 2:56 PM > To: 'Eli Friedman' > Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List > Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] RFC: Supporting different sized address space > arithmetic > > Eli, > There is a patch that implements the beginning what I think is the > correct approach to support the backend

From: Justin Holewinski [mailto:justin.holewinski at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 9:48 AM To: Villmow, Micah Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Changes to the PTX calling conventions On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com<mailto:Micah.Villmow at amd.com>> wrote: Currently, PTX has its own calling conventions where