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

On 03/08/2010 11:23 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 6 March 2010 02:05, Tobias Grosser<grosser at fim.uni-passau.de> wrote: >> This is useful if you want to restrict an analysis&transformation >> e.g. to side effect free code, code without loops, code without >> irregular control flow, ... > > I'm confused... > > I thought that loop optimization was one

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 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

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

On 01/06/2011 10:59 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 6 January 2011 15:16, Tobias Grosser<grosser at fim.uni-passau.de> wrote: >>> The main idea is, we separate the transform passes and codegen passes >>> for auto-parallelization and vectorization (Graphite[2] for gcc seems >>> to taking similar approach for auto-vectorization). > > I agree with Ether. >

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

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

On 6 January 2011 15:16, Tobias Grosser <grosser at fim.uni-passau.de> wrote: >> The main idea is, we separate the transform passes and codegen passes >> for auto-parallelization and vectorization (Graphite[2] for gcc seems >> to taking similar approach for auto-vectorization). I agree with Ether. A two-stage vectorization would allow you to use the simple loop-unroller

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 Hal, On 09/22, Hal Finkel wrote: > Hi, Johannes, > > Thanks for writing this. I certainly think you have the right idea in terms > of the desired end state and modular design. Thanks for the feedback! > On 09/19/2017 07:33 PM, Johannes Doerfert wrote: > >Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael, and others, > > > >I'd like to add my view (and a proposal) to this

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,

Hi, Johannes, Thanks for writing this. I certainly think you have the right idea in terms of the desired end state and modular design. On 09/19/2017 07:33 PM, Johannes Doerfert wrote: > 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

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

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 04/04/2011 12:23 AM, Vlad Krylov wrote: > > Hi. Hi Vlad, first of all it seems the conflict with raghesh was already solved. Nice. Regarding your draft. It looks like a reasonable first version, but it obviously needs to be extended for the final application. I would also recommend to install Polly and try to find the first test cases that cannot be handled. Some comments to your

Hi, I'd like to ask another thing about Polly and SCoP discarding. I've noticed that Polly discards quite simple loops like: for (int i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {} or for (int i= 0; i < 1000; i+=2) {} is this an intended behavior or there is some way to make it accept these kind of loops ? Thanks, Marcello 2011/10/3 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > Hi Tobias,

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

Hi. My plan would be: 1w Study sources of Polly and LLVM docs relating to analysis. 2w Create tests which demonstrate problems with NSW/NUW 3-4w Fix the handling of wrap overflows. 5w Complete middle term paperwork. 6w Create tests for each of cases which are not currently optimized (e.g. have min/max, sext/zext, trunc or unsigned comparisons in the loop bounds or memory accesses). 7w Learn how

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

Hi Hal, On 09/21, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev wrote: > > On 09/12/2017 10:26 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner wrote: > > > > > >>On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev > >><llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > >> > >> > >>On 09/11/2017 12:26 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: > >>>Hi Hal,