similar to: [LLVMdev] I would like to merge PARSEC into test-suite

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote: > Patrick, > > On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:18 AM, Patrick Simmons wrote: >> It is open-source and redistributable, and I have added LICENSE.TXT >> files to all the pieces I want to merge.  These are blackscholes, >> canneal, dedup, fluidanimate, freqmine, streamcluster, and swaptions.  I >>

Patrick, On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:18 AM, Patrick Simmons wrote: > It is open-source and redistributable, and I have added LICENSE.TXT > files to all the pieces I want to merge. These are blackscholes, > canneal, dedup, fluidanimate, freqmine, streamcluster, and swaptions. I > will disable the tests by default on the initial merge and test > thoroughly on Linux and MacOS before

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:57 AM, John Criswell <criswell at uiuc.edu> wrote: > Daniel Dunbar wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Patrick, >>> >>> On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:18 AM, Patrick Simmons wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> It is open-source and

Daniel Dunbar wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote: > >> Patrick, >> >> On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:18 AM, Patrick Simmons wrote: >> >>> It is open-source and redistributable, and I have added LICENSE.TXT >>> files to all the pieces I want to merge. These are blackscholes, >>> canneal,

It's not *that* big. The patch is 634K uncompressed. I'd say it would be annoying to have that attached to an email message, but it's no bigger than existing MultiSource tests. --Patrick On 07/21/2010 08:13 PM, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:57 AM, John Criswell<criswell at uiuc.edu> wrote: > >> Daniel Dunbar wrote: >>

Hi David, > Are the data below all collected when only one function is picked for > instrumentation? Yes, here is a list of the benchmarks and selected functions. +-----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | blks | _Z19BlkSchlsEqEuroNoDivfffffif |

Hi Vedant, I would like to clarify that the proposal does *intra-procedural* path profiling as described in [Ball96]. > > This proposal adds support for path profiling [Ball96] to LLVM. Path profiling compactly represents acyclic paths in a directed acyclic graph representation of the control flow graph of a routine. Instrumentation can be added to uniquely identify paths executed at

Hi Snehasish, thanks for writing up the proposal. As it stands today, path profiling still has serious scalability issue that prevents it from being usable by any optimization passes that may benefit from it. On the other hand, sampling based approach can still be promising. For instance, LBR can potentially together with static CFG constructed from the binary can be used to form path(let)

Hi I am pinging to find out if there is any interest to mentor this proposal for GSoC this year? I've submitted a draft via the GSoC website. David, Vedant it would be great if I could get some advice on refining the goals and particulars of the implementation. The version we use internally is not performance oriented and will require refactoring. Here is a link to the draft document [1].

Hi David, > Hi Snehasish, thanks for writing up the proposal. > > As it stands today, path profiling still has serious scalability issue that > prevents it from being usable by any optimization passes that may benefit > from it. I agree; it would be an interesting to see how we can reduce the overheads to bring it within acceptable limits. > It will be interesting to see how

I've recently played with the GCC implementation of pointer checker on a real hardware, my recent impressions are here: https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizerIntelMemoryProtectionExtensions (there is also some old pre-hardware content). In short, I totally agree with what David says above: MPX is a disaster. (Usual disclaimer: my opinion here is too biased) I am glad

This proposal adds support for path profiling [Ball96] to LLVM. Path profiling compactly represents acyclic paths in a directed acyclic graph representation of the control flow graph of a routine. Instrumentation can be added to uniquely identify paths executed at runtime. Path profiles enable precise enumeration of the sequence of basic blocks executed in order for a particular path. Using path

Hi Tim, Thanks for the patch. I had a few questions though - just to make sure that I get the problem correctly. Currently, here is your flow, as I understand it : x86 llvm-gcc binary llc -march=sparc gcc cross/sparc source ---------------------> .bc ------------------> .s -----------------> sparc executable. Is this correct? Or did you manage to build the

Hi everyone, Following my earlier posting (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-November/036292.html), I sent another message to the list, but it seems like it didn't get through :-( I managed to fix the problem in my earlier post and compile a cross-llvm-gcc. Then I discovered I was having problems with a setting a variable based on a ?: condition. Anyway, I've

I have completed work merging PARSEC into the LLVM test suite infrastructure? The patch is available at [http://zion.cs.uiuc.edu/~simmon12/parsec.patch]. If there are no objections, would someone please commit this patch to test-suite? Best regards, --Patrick

Has anyone ever used pool allocation on PARSEC? If not, has anyone ever compiled PARSEC to whole-program LLVM bytecode executables? If you have done either of these things, would you please email me your .bldconf files? Thanks, --Patrick

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Dmitrii Kuvaiskii < Dmitrii.Kuvaiskii at tu-dresden.de> wrote: > I continue playing with Intel MPX and its support in modern compilers. > All experiments were done on the Alienware (Dell) 15 R2, Ubuntu 15.10 > (linux 4.2.0), gcc version is 5.2.1, icc version 2016.1.150. The > benchmark suite is PARSEC 3.0, all versions with 1 thread and default

Would someone please merge this for me? --Patrick On 08/05/10 13:43, Patrick Alexander Simmons wrote: > I have completed work merging PARSEC into the LLVM test suite > infrastructure? The patch is available at > [http://zion.cs.uiuc.edu/~simmon12/parsec.patch]. If there are no > objections, would someone please commit this patch to test-suite? > > Best regards, > --Patrick

Hello all! I would like to create a 3d plot, with the option price explained by the underlying price and time. Unfortunately, I can't quite get it to work. I would very much appreciate your help! Thanks, Anna # Black-Scholes Option Graph library(lattice) blackscholes <- function(s, k, r=.1, t=5, sigma=.9,call=TRUE) { #calculate call/put option d1 <-

There was some talk a year ago about a patch that merges PARSEC into the test suite. Here is a link to the thread: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-August/033877.html Has this just fallen through the cracks? Any help on this subject is welcome. Thanks! -- Wonsun -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: