similar to: [LLVMdev] Landing my new development on the trunk ...

On Jul 5, 2012, at 1:33 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Bill, > >> Nothing that I'm aware of has changed with EH. Is it possible to bisect the problem? > > I don't see any relevant LLVM changes, so I guess clang C++ compilation slowed > down due to some clang changes. I'm not going to investigate this. > Crumbs. John, Do you know of anything that went into

Using the small reproducible example below, I'd like to know if one can somehow use the matrix "sig" (defined below) to add a black outline (with lwd=2) to all pixels with a corresponding value of 1 in the matrix 'sig'? So for example, in the ggplot2 plot below, the pixel located at [1,3] would be outlined by a black square since the value at sig[1,3] == 1. This is my first

Nothing that I'm aware of has changed with EH. Is it possible to bisect the problem? -bw On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:38 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Did something change with exception handling recently? A bunch of lit bots are > showing slower compile times for many tests. > > Ciao, Duncan. > > On 20/06/12 07:53, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu

Hi Bill, > Nothing that I'm aware of has changed with EH. Is it possible to bisect the problem? I don't see any relevant LLVM changes, so I guess clang C++ compilation slowed down due to some clang changes. I'm not going to investigate this. Ciao, Duncan. > > -bw > > On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:38 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > >> Did

Hi Eric, you can use an annotate-layer, eg ind<-which(sig>0,arr.ind = T) ggplot(m1.melted, aes(x = Month, y = Site, fill = Concentration), autoscale = FALSE, zmin = -1 * zmax1, zmax = zmax1) + geom_tile() + coord_equal() + scale_fill_gradient2(low = "darkred", mid = "white", high = "darkblue",

Did something change with exception handling recently? A bunch of lit bots are showing slower compile times for many tests. Ciao, Duncan. On 20/06/12 07:53, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > > lab-mini-03__O0-g__clang_DEV__x86_64 test results > <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283?compare_to=1278&baseline=999> > > Run Order Start Time Duration >

Dear friends, I used R and SAS to analyze my data through generalized linear model, and there is some difference between them. Results from R: glm(formula = snail ~ grass + gheight + humidity + altitude + soiltemr + airtemr, family = Gamma) Deviance Residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -1.23873 -0.41123 -0.08703 0.24339 1.21435 Coefficients:

Are these 225 compile time regressions real? It sure looks bad! Ciao, Duncan. On 01/12/11 09:39, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > > bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386 nightly tester results > > URL http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/simple/nts/380/ > Nickname bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386:4 > Name curlew.apple.com > > Run ID Order Start Time End Time > Current 380

Target: FreeBSD 7.0-RC1 on amd64. autoconf says: configure:2122: checking build system type configure:2140: result: x86_64-unknown-freebsd7.0 [...] configure:2721: gcc -v >&5 Using built-in specs. Target: amd64-undermydesk-freebsd Configured with: FreeBSD/amd64 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 4.2.1 20070719 [FreeBSD] [...] objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc. Release

On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:20 PM, Brian West wrote: > On 10/29/10 1:26 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> Sure, but you know which induction variables you created; you can just >> zap the unused ones at the end of the pass, no? > This is feasible. We would have to collect more information during OSR > proper pass and add logic to cleanup at the end. > >>> FWIW I noticed

I tried to manually assign each of 3 arrays a unique TBAA node. But it does not seem to help: alias analysis still considers arrays as may-alias, which most likely prevents the desired optimization. Below is the sample code with TBAA metadata inserted. Could you please suggest what might be wrong with it? Many thanks, - D. marcusmae at M17xR4:~/forge/llvm$ opt -time-passes -enable-tbaa -tbaa

On 10/27/10 8:34 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Brian West<bnwest at rice.edu> wrote: >> Here is the patch for the new Operator Strength Reduction optimization >> pass that I have written. The bulk of the code is in >> >> lib/Transforms/Scalar/OperatorStrengthReduce.cpp >> >> The algorithm finds reduction opportunities in

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Brian West <bnwest at rice.edu> wrote: > Eli Friedman <eli.friedman <at> gmail.com> writes: >> >> > I did not mention in the original email (and should have) that OSR >> >> > needs >> >> > -instcombine to be run after it for cleanup. Also -licm, >> >> > -reassociate, -gvn >>

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Brian West <bnwest at rice.edu> wrote: >> 3. LLVM already has a significant amount of infrastructure for loop >> passes; why does this pass have its own code for finding loops? > > I saw the loop infrastructure for CFG loops. This algorithm finds loops in > the data flow (more precisely: strongly-connected components in the >

On 10/29/10 1:26 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > Sure, but you know which induction variables you created; you can just > zap the unused ones at the end of the pass, no? This is feasible. We would have to collect more information during OSR proper pass and add logic to cleanup at the end. >> FWIW I noticed that other optimizations (as seen in StandardPasses.h) are >> followed by

Eli Friedman <eli.friedman <at> gmail.com> writes: > > Empirically the OSR optimization is compile-time faster than LSR. I have > > also noticed that OSR has more "analysis" requirements: Induction Variable > > User, Natural Loop Information, Canonicalize natural loops, and Scalar > > Evolution Analysis. Both OSR and LSR require the Dominator Tree

Eli Friedman <eli.friedman <at> gmail.com> writes: > >> > I did not mention in the original email (and should have) that OSR needs > >> > -instcombine to be run after it for cleanup. Also -licm, -reassociate, -gvn > >> > and -sccp can be enabling optimizations for OSR. > >> > >> Hmm... perhaps that could be partially fixed

> > A big downside of the current LSR algorithm is it's slow. I had initially > hoped that some of the heuristics would protect it better, but the problem > is > more complex than I had expected. I haven't done any measurements, > but it's likely that OSR is faster, which may interest some people > regardless > of how the output compares. > A few years

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Brian West <bnwest at rice.edu> wrote: > On 11/13/10 11:05 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > A big downside of the current LSR algorithm is it's slow. I had >> initially >> hoped that some of the heuristics would protect it better, but the problem >> is >> more complex than I had expected. I haven't done any

On 23.11.2012, at 15:12, john skaller <skaller at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > On 23/11/2012, at 5:46 PM, Sean Silva wrote: > >> Adding LLVMdev, since this is intimately related to the optimization passes. >> >>> I think this is roughly because some function level optimisations are >>> worse than O(N) in the number of instructions. >>