similar to: [LLVMdev] region pass - new pass for llvm

On 02/28/2010 07:12 AM, ether zhhb wrote: > hi all, Hi ether, sorry that it took so long to reply and thanks for your work on the regions stuff. Concerning this patch there are still some small things I would have liked to improve, before before people spend time reviewing this patchset in detail. However as the topic is now on the mailing list maybe we get some feedback on the general

On 03/08/2010 12:36 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > Hi Tobias, > > >> What do you mean with a closed CFG? > > Closed region, one entry/one exit. > > >>> Still, non-affine loops can be converted to affine loops in many ways >> How would you do this? As we use the scalar evolution analysis to analyze >> the loops, we do not depend on any syntactic form.

On 07/01/2013 06:51 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> Great. Now we have two test cases we can work with. Can you > >> upload the LLVM-IR produced by clang -O0 (without Polly)? > Since tramp3d-v4.ll is to large (19M with 267 thousand lines), I would focus on the oggenc benchmark at firat. > I attached the oggenc.ll (LLVM-IR produced by clang -O0 without Polly), which compressed into the

Hi, 2011/4/8 Vlad Krylov <krvladislav at gmail.com>: > Hi. > > I see that to detect scops firstly we search for regions in CFG ( by > RegionInfo ) and then select regions that answer some requirements ( > in ScopDetection ). Because only affine expressions in conditions and > bounds are permissible, we trying to get scalar expressions into > affine form by

Hi. I see that to detect scops firstly we search for regions in CFG ( by RegionInfo ) and then select regions that answer some requirements ( in ScopDetection ). Because only affine expressions in conditions and bounds are permissible, we trying to get scalar expressions into affine form by AffineSCEVIterator. At present there plugs for scev types Truncate, ZeroExtend, SignExtend, UDivExpr,

2012/2/12 Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es>: > On 02/08/2012 08:08 PM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: >> >> Hi, I'm using Polly to analyze memory access patterns for an >> university project and I'm trying to get polly working on some loops >> that polly marks as "containing non affine branches" . > > > Hi Marcello, > > sorry for the

Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 22:06 Uhr schrieb Uday Kumar Reddy Bondhugula < uday at polymagelabs.com>: > Hi Michael, > > Although the approach to use a higher order in-memory abstraction like the > loop tree will make it easier than what you have today, if you used MLIR > for this representation, you already get a round trippable textual format > that is *very close* to your

2011/4/8 ether zhhb <etherzhhb at gmail.com>: > Hi, > > 2011/4/8 Vlad Krylov <krvladislav at gmail.com>: >> Hi. >> >> I see that to detect scops firstly we search for regions in CFG ( by >> RegionInfo ) and then select regions that answer some requirements ( >> in ScopDetection ). Because only affine expressions in conditions and >> bounds

Hi Tobias, thanks for the answer. I'll try to give a look to the code you pointed me to , and I'll try to make the modification myself. I'm new to LLVM and Polly, but the code of both seem clean and understandable, so I hope to be able to do it myself. In case I'll ask here for support :) Marcello 2011/10/1 Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es>: > On 10/01/2011 03:26

On 04/08/2011 08:35 PM, Vlad Krylov wrote: > 2011/4/8 ether zhhb<etherzhhb at gmail.com>: >> Hi, >> >> 2011/4/8 Vlad Krylov<krvladislav at gmail.com>: >>> Hi. >>> >>> I see that to detect scops firstly we search for regions in CFG ( by >>> RegionInfo ) and then select regions that answer some requirements ( >>> in

Am Do., 30. Jan. 2020 um 04:40 Uhr schrieb Uday Kumar Reddy Bondhugula <uday at polymagelabs.com>: > There are multiple ways regions in MLIR can be viewed, but the more relevant point here is you do have a loop tree structure native in the IR with MLIR. Regions in MLIR didn't evolve from modeling inlined calls - the affine.for/affine.if were originally the only two operations in MLIR

Hi, I'm using Polly to analyze memory access patterns for an university project and I'm trying to get polly working on some loops that polly marks as "containing non affine branches" . >From what I understand polly skips Scops that contain these branches (which comprises something like "if (i % 2 == 0)" where i is a loop varying variable) because these kind of

On 02/08/2012 08:08 PM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: > Hi, I'm using Polly to analyze memory access patterns for an > university project and I'm trying to get polly working on some loops > that polly marks as "containing non affine branches" . Hi Marcello, sorry for the long delay. > From what I understand polly skips Scops that contain these branches > (which

>Great. Now we have two test cases we can work with. Can you >upload the LLVM-IR produced by clang -O0 (without Polly)? Since tramp3d-v4.ll is to large (19M with 267 thousand lines), I would focus on the oggenc benchmark at firat. I attached the oggenc.ll (LLVM-IR produced by clang -O0 without Polly), which compressed into the file oggenc.tgz. >2) Check why the Polly scop detection is

I just checkout release_38 branches of llvm, clang and polly and built it on and x86 Ubuntu with cmake: CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE="Debug" CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX="$HOME/toolchain/install/llvm-3.8" LLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="X86" cmake -G "Unix Makefiles" \ -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS="ON" \ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=$CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE \

Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael, and others, I'd like to add my view (and a proposal) to this discussion and I apologize directly for doing this so late*. I also want to apologize because this email is long, contains various technical details and also argumentations that might need more justification. However, I am happy to provide further information (and/or examples) to explain my views if

On 08/08/2013 01:29 AM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi all, > > > I have summarized the top 10 compiler passes for Polly when compiling LLVM test-ssuite. Results can be viewed on: > https://gist.github.com/tanstar/581bcea1e4e03498f935/raw/f6a4ec4e8565f7a7bbdb924cd59fcf145caac039/Polly-top10 > > > Based on the comparison between "clang -O3" and "polly -O3"

Hi all, I have summarized the top 10 compiler passes for Polly when compiling LLVM test-ssuite. Results can be viewed on: https://gist.github.com/tanstar/581bcea1e4e03498f935/raw/f6a4ec4e8565f7a7bbdb924cd59fcf145caac039/Polly-top10 Based on the comparison between "clang -O3" and "polly -O3" listed on:

On 11/14/2011 01:24 AM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: > Hi Tobias. > > I worked on enabling Polly accepting non affine memory accesses and I > produced a patch. Great. > I saw that there were a lot of updates in Polly recently, so I had to > redo a lot of the work I did and that slowed me quite a bit. Ups, sorry! However, I believe without these changes detecting non-affine memory

On 10/01/2011 03:26 PM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I'm trying to use LLVM+Polly to obtain a polyhedral representation of > some loops to use later for passes I want to implement, but seems like > Polly will stop when reaching any statement that has non-affine access > functions of the loop bounds discarding the whole SCoP entirely. > > What I would