similar to: [LLVMdev] Design question on implementing OpenMP support

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Simone Atzeni" <simone.at at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu, cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu, openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 3:52:38 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev][Openmp-dev] Provide LLVM IR and OpenMP LLVM IR as input

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Simone Atzeni" <simone.at at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu, cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu, openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 3:42:03 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev][Openmp-dev] Provide LLVM IR and OpenMP LLVM IR as input

Hello, I am a masters student interested in parallelization API's and auto parallelization. I have been following LLVM's development for some time now and would like to make a contribution. In particular I am interested in adding OpenMP support for LLVM. I believe this will be useful both for clang as well as LLVM Polly. I would like to know if anyone is already working on this. Any

On 07/04/2012 10:35 AM, Raghavendra, Prakash wrote: > Hi > > I wanted to know the status of OpenMP (or in general auto > parallelization) support in > > LLVM. > > I read some threads discussing about possible effort in that direction > in 3.1 onwards, > > but did not see any further discussion on that. > > If someone in the list knows the updated info or can

On 10/19/2010 05:50 AM, Gautam B.T. wrote: > Hello, > > I am a masters student interested in parallelization API's and auto > parallelization. I have been following LLVM's development for some time now > and would like to make a contribution. In particular I am interested in > adding > OpenMP support for LLVM. I believe this will be useful both for clang as > well

>> for (unsigned i = 0; i < buckets; i++) >>  count[i] = 0; >> >> for (unsigned i = 0; i < n; i++) >>   count[src[i]]++; >> >> start[0] = 0; >> for (unsigned i = 1; i < buckets; i++) >>   start[i] = start[i - 1] + count[i - 1]; >> >> #pragma assert parallel >> for (unsigned i = 0; i < n; i++) { >>   unsigned

On 02/06/2012 10:02 PM, Preston Briggs wrote: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Sebastian Pop <spop at codeaurora.org > <mailto:spop at codeaurora.org>> wrote: >> [many things, but I'm only going to focus on one of them] Would >> you consider using Polly http://polly.grosser.es to avoid writing >> this code? > > My impression is that Polly (and

On 12 August 2014 18:49, Johannes Doerfert <doerfert at cs.uni-saarland.de> wrote: > I recently submitted a patch to the list [1] which would allow Polly to > extract the dependency distance for each analyzable loop. While the > distance is often not constant but parametric we would also need to > version the vectorized loop based on the actual runtime values. Since this is a

On 11/20/2013 04:50 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:07:18PM +0100, Tobias Grosser wrote: >> On 11/19/2013 08:50 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: >>> Tobias, >>> Can we add something like the following to polly 3.4? >>> >>> Index: CMakeLists.txt >>> ===================================================================

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:07:18PM +0100, Tobias Grosser wrote: > On 11/19/2013 08:50 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: >> Tobias, >> Can we add something like the following to polly 3.4? >> >> Index: CMakeLists.txt >> =================================================================== >> --- CMakeLists.txt (revision 195142) >> +++ CMakeLists.txt (working

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 05:00:44PM +0100, Tobias Grosser wrote: > On 11/20/2013 04:50 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:07:18PM +0100, Tobias Grosser wrote: >>> On 11/19/2013 08:50 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: >>>> Tobias, >>>> Can we add something like the following to polly 3.4? >>>> >>>> Index: CMakeLists.txt

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Simone Atzeni" <simone.at at gmail.com> > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu, cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu, openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 3:17:07 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev][Openmp-dev] Provide LLVM IR and OpenMP LLVM IR as input in a Pass > > > > Hi all, > I am going

Tobias, Can we add something like the following to polly 3.4? Index: CMakeLists.txt =================================================================== --- CMakeLists.txt (revision 195142) +++ CMakeLists.txt (working copy) @@ -81,9 +81,14 @@ set(CMAKE_MODULE_PATH ${CMAKE_MODULE_PAT FIND_PACKAGE(Isl REQUIRED) FIND_PACKAGE(Gmp REQUIRED) -FIND_PACKAGE(Cloog) FIND_PACKAGE(Pluto)

On 10/07/2011 03:43 PM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: > 2011/10/7 Marcello Maggioni<hayarms at gmail.com>: >> Hi, >> >> for example this loop: >> >> #include<stdio.h> >> >> int main() >> { >> int A[1024]; >> int j, k=10; >> for (j = 1; j< 1024; j++) >> A[j] =

Hi tobi, >> 2. Allow the some generic parallelism information live out specific >> autopar framework, so these information can benefit more passes in >> llvm. For example, the X86 and PTX backend could use these information >> to perform target specific auto-vectorization. > > What other types of parallelism are you expecting? We currently support > thread level

On 10 March 2015 at 08:36, Kevin Streit <streit at mailbox.org> wrote: > Again, optimizations could break it, violating a possible contract with the user. AFAIK, all these annotations are more hints than contracts. Adding #pragma omp simd on a loop that has forward dependencies that cannot be solved should not make the loop vectorize (incorrectly). Same goes for standard OMP, threads and

On 11/19/2013 08:50 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > Tobias, > Can we add something like the following to polly 3.4? > > Index: CMakeLists.txt > =================================================================== > --- CMakeLists.txt (revision 195142) > +++ CMakeLists.txt (working copy) > @@ -81,9 +81,14 @@ set(CMAKE_MODULE_PATH ${CMAKE_MODULE_PAT > > FIND_PACKAGE(Isl

Hi Ether, On 18 April 2012 19:11, Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com> wrote: > Instead of exporting the polyhedral model of the program with > metadata, another possible solution is designing a generic "Loop > Parallelism" analysis interface just like the AliasAnalysis group. > For a particular loop, the interface simply answer how many loop > iterations can run

Hi I wanted to know the status of OpenMP (or in general auto parallelization) support in LLVM. I read some threads discussing about possible effort in that direction in 3.1 onwards, but did not see any further discussion on that. If someone in the list knows the updated info or can point me to any useful info, that would be useful. Thanks Regards Prakash Raghavendra -------------- next part

On 09/12/2011 04:28 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > Hi Alexandra, > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 13:53, Jimborean Alexandra<xinfinity_a at yahoo.com> wrote: >> I had a look at the CodeGeneration from Polly. Is it possible to use it >> without creating the Scops, by transforming it into a LoopPass? > > Yes. If you don't want to use the autopar of Polly and just rely on