similar to: [LLVMdev] Contributing to Polly with GSOC 2011

hi raghesh, > > 5. Porting Polly to Various architectures. > ------------------------------------------------- > > Currently Polly generates everything as 64 bit integer, which is > problamatic for embedded platforms. > you may try something like this: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-January/037277.html I am already planning to implement this, and it is

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

On 03/23/2011 09:58 PM, ether zhhb wrote: > hi raghesh, > > >> >> 5. Porting Polly to Various architectures. >> ------------------------------------------------- >> >> Currently Polly generates everything as 64 bit integer, which is >> problamatic for embedded platforms. >> > you may try something like this: >

Mmm, this code seems to kill polly: #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> int main() { char *B; int i,j,k,h; const int x = 0, y=0; B = (char *)malloc(sizeof(char)*1024*1024); for (i = 1; i < 1024; i++) for (j = 1; j < 1024; j++) { if (i+j > 1000) B[j] = i; } printf("Random Value: %d", B[rand() % 1024*1024]); return 0; } running: opt

On 06/29/2013 05:04 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi all, > > > > I have investigated the compile-time overhead of "Polly Scop Detection" pass based on LNT testing results. > This mail is to share some results I have found. > > > (1) Analysis of "SCOP Detection Pass" for PolyBench (Attached file PolyBench_SCoPs.log) > Experimental results show that the

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 all, I have investigated the compile-time overhead of "Polly Scop Detection" pass based on LNT testing results. This mail is to share some results I have found. (1) Analysis of "SCOP Detection Pass" for PolyBench (Attached file PolyBench_SCoPs.log) Experimental results show that the "SCOP Detection pass" does not lead to significant extra compile-time

On 07/30/2013 10:03 AM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi Tobias and all Polly developers, > > I have re-evaluated the Polly compile-time performance using newest > LLVM/Polly source code. You can view the results on > http://188.40.87.11:8000 > <http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/16?compare_to=9&baseline=9&aggregation_fn=median>. > > Especially, I also evaluated

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

>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

On 07/31/2013 09:23 PM, Star Tan wrote: > At 2013-07-31 22:50:57,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es > <mailto:tobias at grosser.es>> wrote: > >>On 07/30/2013 10:03 AM, Star Tan wrote: >>> Hi Tobias and all Polly developers, >>> >>> I have re-evaluated the Polly compile-time performance using newest >>> LLVM/Polly source

>> (3) About detecting scop regions in bottom-up order. >> Detecting scop regions in bottom-up order can significantly speed up the scop detection pass. However, as I have discussed with Sebastian, detecting scops in bottom-up order and up-bottom order will lead to different results. As a result, we should not change the detection order. > >Sebastian had a patch for this. Does

Hi Tobias and all Polly developers, I have re-evaluated the Polly compile-time performance using newest LLVM/Polly source code. You can view the results on http://188.40.87.11:8000. Especially, I also evaluated our r187102 patch file that avoids expensive failure string operations in normal execution. Specifically, I evaluated two cases for it: Polly-NoCodeGen: clang -O3 -load

Dear Community, I would like to summarize my work till date for GSoC 2016. Till the current phase of my project, I have mostly focused on developing the necessary infrastructure to use analysis results from Polly in LLVM. Initial plan as mentioned in the proposal: For the first month:- 1. Decouple ScopInfo pass from Polly’s pass chain and provide capability to create SCoP(Static

At 2013-07-31 22:50:57,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 07/30/2013 10:03 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> Hi Tobias and all Polly developers, >> >> I have re-evaluated the Polly compile-time performance using newest >> LLVM/Polly source code. You can view the results on >> http://188.40.87.11:8000 >>

At 2013-08-17 23:22:32,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 08/17/2013 12:08 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> At 2013-08-16 22:32:30,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes, I have changed the original code to the form you suggested: >>>> for (i >>>> for (j >>>>

Mmm I found out a very strange behavior (to me) of the SCEV analysis of the loop bound of the external loop I posted. When in ScopDetection it gets the SCEV of the external loop bound in the "isValidLoop()" function with: const SCEV *LoopCount = SE->getBackedgeTakenCount(L); It returns a SCEVCouldNotCompute, but if I change the "if" block inside the loop from: if

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] =

How do you compile the code? Within the Polly subdirectory using CMake? How do you run your pass. Using "opt -mypass inputfile.ll"? Michael 2018-01-28 9:30 GMT-06:00 hameeza ahmed via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > Hello, > > I need to analyze dependencies in my llvm ir by using polly. i created a new > pass called mypass there i added polly dependency

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