similar to: [LLVMdev] Macro-op fusion experiment

On Apr 8, 2011, at 3:29 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > x86 processors use macro-op fusion to merge together two instructions and execute them as one. So it's beneficial for the compiler to emit them as a pair. > > Currently only compare and jump instructions get fused though. And I was wondering whether it also makes sense to fuse move and arithmetic instructions together, to form

Hi Jacob, As far as I know, an x86 'mov' instruction always uses an ALU resource. According to Agner Fog's documents (http://www.agner.org/optimize/), it can execute on port 0, 1 or 5 on recent architectures though. So it's not that likely to be resource limited. But it still occupies an instruction slot throughout the entire pipeline, costing power and potentially limiting other

On Apr 8, 2011, at 9:56 AM, NAKAMURA Takumi wrote: >>> 8B C3 mov eax, ebx >>> 03 C1 add eax, ecx >>> becomes >>> 8B C3 03 C1 add eax, ebx, ecx > > In my understanding, twoaddr pass tends to emit such a sequence. Yes, it always does, and the coalescer tries very hard to eliminate the copy. > Though I

>>                 8B C3 mov eax, ebx >>                 03 C1 add eax, ecx >> becomes >>                 8B C3 03 C1 add eax, ebx, ecx In my understanding, twoaddr pass tends to emit such a sequence. Though I don't have sandybridge, I have not measured. Prior processors(intel and amd) might spend 1 ALU to execute "mov", then mov - add must have dependency.

On Apr 17, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > My immediate concern is getting a reasonable estimate for how often this macro-op fusion could be performed. This could then be used to evaluate whether it's worth the added decoder complexity. In that case, just look at the generated code. I don't think any pass is inserting instructions between 'mov' and two-address

Hi all, I have created a patch (up for review at: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17386) that does Loop Fusion implementation. Approach: Legality: Currently it can fuse two adjacent loops whose iteration spaces are same and are at same depth. Dependence legality: Currently, dependence legality cannot be checked across loops. Hence the loops are cloned along a versioned path, unconditionally fused

Hi, Thanks for the reply. Few thoughts inlined. On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Vikram, > > On Feb 18, 2016, at 9:21 AM, Vikram TV via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have created a patch (up for review at: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17386) > that does Loop Fusion implementation.

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 6:27 AM, Vikram TV <vikram.tarikere at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Vikram TV <vikram.tarikere at gmail.com <mailto:vikram.tarikere at gmail.com>> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the reply. Few thoughts inlined. > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adam Nemet" <anemet at apple.com> > To: "Ramshankar Ramanarayanan" <Ramshankar.Ramanarayanan at amd.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 12:20:55 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] proof of concept for a loop fusion pass > > > On Jan 15, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Ramanarayanan,

Hi guys, let me first introduce myself, I'm Fusion Linux (www.fusionlinux.org) project leader. Fusion Linux is a Fedora Remix that includes all the best software that is available for Linux. Fusion uses a combination of free and open-source, non-free and non-open-source firmware and software, to bring the user the most advanced experience on the Linux platform. Fusion Linux is 100%

Hi, We are proposing a loop fusion pass that tries to proactive fuse loops across function call boundaries and arbitrary control flow. http://reviews.llvm.org/D7008 With this pass, we get 103 loop fusions in SPECCPU INT 2006 462.libquantum with rate performance improving close to 2.5X in x86 (results from AMD A10-6700). I took some liberties in patching up some of the code in

Compiz Fusion Release 0.5.2 is out! This is the first development release of Compiz Fusion, the result of more than six months of work and polish. The first stable release, 0.6.0, will follow after the Compiz 0.6.0 release. Compiz Fusion is the result of a merge between the Compiz community plugin set "Compiz Extras" and the parts of the Beryl project that are independent of the

I''m testing xen 3.4 on my servers, and I''m having problem with controller driver, he can''t load itself properly so the system isn''t booting. The system is debian 5.0 with kernel 2.6.26-2-xen from distribution and 2.6.29-5 compiled, the problem occure with both kernels ouput from debian 5.0/kernel 2.6.26-2-xen/xen-3.4.1-rc2 4.306723] PNP: No PS/2

After upgrading my VMware Fusion (10.1.3) Arch Guest to the latest with OpenSSH upgraded from 7.7p1 to 7.8p1, found that ssh from macOS Sierra (10.12.6) host to Arch guest via local NAT port forwarding failed, but via Arch LAN IP worked, downgraded OpenSSH from 7.8p1 to 7.7p1 fixed the problem. Any idea about this bug? VMware Fusion NAT Port Forwarding setup: VMware Fusion ? NAT Port Forwarding

Hi, I'm shifting from Windows 98 to Linux. I need a html tool for Linux to easily change the file hierarchy like in Net Objects Fusion. I don' t have Net Objects Fusion yet. But if there's no similar Linux native tool I want to use Net Objects Fusion. So has anyone experience in using Net Objects Fusion with Wine or knows a tool which is at least as good as Fusion? TiA joe

Hi, Inside VMware Fusion 1.1.1, I have a virtual machine running CentOS 5.1 x86_64 with: - kernel-vm-2.6.18-53.1.13.el5.x86_64.rpm from http://people.centos.org/~tru/kernel-vm/5/RPMS/x86_64/ - kmod-open-vm-tools-0-0.20080123.2.6.18_53.1.13.el5vm.x86_64.rpm from http://people.centos.org/~hughesjr/open-vm-tools/5/x86_64/ First problem: Sometimes (most times) I get this error during boot (first

I am having troubles having compiz fusion to work with my GMA 950. I have posted this problem on this forum, and it seems other have been affected of this recently: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=36875 Information: here is my xorg.conf: http://one.fsphost.com/jinn/configs/xorg.conf [15:52 root ~]# uname -a Linux estergon 2.6.22-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Thu Aug 23 20:18:37 CEST 2007 i686

Thanks a lot for your input. We will look more into the legality and profitability checks you've mentioned. -Qi On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Qi, > > No, we don’t have loop fusion. The loop fusion transformation itself is > easy, but the profitability and legality checks are challenging. For > legality, you would need

Hi Qi, No, we don’t have loop fusion. The loop fusion transformation itself is easy, but the profitability and legality checks are challenging. For legality, you would need to analyze the memory that you access and figure out that it is legal to fuse the loops. For profitability you would need to predict the effect on performance. You would need to predict register pressure and resource

On Sep 8, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 8 September 2010 18:21, Devang Patel <dpatel at apple.com> wrote: >> Andrew, >> >> There is not any transformation in LLVM that does loop fusion. I do not of anyone who is working on this. If you're interested to work on it then it'd be great! > > Hi Devang, > > Do you know if any pass is