similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM autovectorization support

On 24 June 2011 21:13, Xin Tong Utoronto <x.tong at utoronto.ca> wrote: > I would like to know the status of the autovectorization support in LLVM. >  does LLVM have a loop dependence analysis, does LLVM have a infrastructure > for autovectorization ? etc. Not yet, but it's getting there... http://polly.grosser.es/ cheers, --renato

I understand that we need to push the address to a register then branch using the register. But i am asking why there is a trampoline there such that a call to foo is first branched to an snippet and the snippet branches to the X86CompilationCallback. is this snippet necessary ? Thanks Xin On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Reid Kleckner <reid.kleckner at gmail.com>wrote: > The

I have a question on the LLVM JIT I did some brief memory reading one day and I found that a call to a non-library function is resolved by the X86CompilationCallback, but the X86CompilationCallback is reached through a trampoline. why can not the generated code jump to the X86CompilationCallback function directly ? 0x2b0a6a4d103b: mov $0x2b0a6a561010,%rax 0x2b0a6a4d1045:

I just checkout release_38 branches of llvm, clang and polly and built it on and x86 Ubuntu with cmake: CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE="Debug" CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX="$HOME/toolchain/install/llvm-3.8" LLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="X86" cmake -G "Unix Makefiles" \ -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS="ON" \ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=$CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE \

The address of the callee may be more than 2 GB away in memory, which cannot be encoded as an immediate offset in the call instruction. So, the value is first materialized with a mov instruction which can encode the immediate and then jumped to through a register. Reid On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Xin Tong Utoronto <x.tong at utoronto.ca> wrote: > I have a question on the LLVM JIT

Do any of you have an idea as to what the Compilation Time vs Execution Time looks like in LLVM JIT with most aggressive optimizations on. Is adaptive compilation going to bring any benefits to the LLVM JIT ? -- Kind Regards Xin Tong -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

How do I submit my GSOC proposal to the llvmdev mailing list ? -- Kind Regards Xin Tong -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110328/4f068139/attachment.html>

*Project Description:* * * LLVM has gained much popularity in the programming languages and compiler industry from the time it is developed. Lots of researchers have used LLVM as frameworks for their researches and many languages have been ported to LLVM IR and interpreted, Just-in-Time compiled or statically compiled to native code. One of the current drawbacks of the LLVM JIT is the lack of an

On 29 March 2011 12:35, Xin Tong Utoronto <x.tong at utoronto.ca> wrote: > *Project Description:* > > * > * > > LLVM has gained much popularity in the programming languages and compiler > industry from the time it is developed. Lots of researchers have used LLVM > as frameworks for their researches and many languages have been ported to > LLVM IR and interpreted,

Hi, When I test "matmul" in the polly directory, I get the following performance data: //=============================== --> 12. Compare the runtime of the executables time ./matmul.normalopt.exe 0:23.53 real, 23.48 user, 0.00 sys time ./matmul.polly.interchanged.exe 0:22.86 real, 22.82 user, 0.01 sys time ./matmul.polly.interchanged+tiled.exe 0:22.87 real, 22.83 user, 0.00 sys

Hi everyone, I'll be very thankful if anyone can help me. I want to extract the dependences details by using polly. I followed the following steps on example code matmul.c: 1. clang -S -emit-llvm matmul.c -o matmul.s 2. opt -S -polly-canonicalize matmul.s > matmul.preopt.ll 3. opt -basicaa -polly-dependences -analyze matmul.preopt.ll But it doesn't show me the dependences. I

Hi, I just have a detail look at the code of Polly[1], it seems that Polly start to support some basic auto-parallelization stuffs. I have some idea to improve the current auto-vectorization and parallelization approach in Polly. The main idea is, we separate the transform passes and codegen passes for auto-parallelization and vectorization (Graphite[2] for gcc seems to taking similar approach

On 11/08/2011 11:45 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: > I've attached the latest version of my autovectorization patch. > > Working through the test suite has proved to be a productive > experience ;) -- And almost all of the bugs that it revealed have now > been fixed. There are still two programs that don't compile with > vectorization turned on, and I'm working on those now,

I've attached the latest version of my autovectorization patch. Working through the test suite has proved to be a productive experience ;) -- And almost all of the bugs that it revealed have now been fixed. There are still two programs that don't compile with vectorization turned on, and I'm working on those now, but in case anyone feels like playing with vectorization, this patch

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of Hal Finkel > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 1:35 AM > > I'd like to add that, mostly through Tobi's efforts, we were able to have isl (the > integer set library) on which Polly depends relicensed such that it is now > distributed under the MIT

Should not the 4.0.0 release be March _2017_ in the "Release Emails" section on http://llvm.org/ ? -Xin

Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael, and others, I'd like to add my view (and a proposal) to this discussion and I apologize directly for doing this so late*. I also want to apologize because this email is long, contains various technical details and also argumentations that might need more justification. However, I am happy to provide further information (and/or examples) to explain my views if

Hi, all I tried Polly installation on Ubuntu. On its building, it returned no errors. But when I run "make polly-test", it returns 11 unexpected failures as follows. ----------------------------------- ******************** Testing Time: 19.77s ******************** Failing Tests (11): Polly :: CodeGen/do_pluto_matmult.ll Polly :: CodeGen/loop_with_condition.ll Polly ::

I do not know too much about clang, is opencl publicly supported in clang ? how about cuda ? Thanks Xin

** *Hi everyone,As you may know, stock LLVM does not provide the kind of advanced loop transformations necessary to provide good performance on many applications. LLVM's Polly project provides many of the required capabilities, including loop transformations such as fission, fusion, skewing, blocking/tiling, and interchange, all powered by state-of-the-art dependence analysis. Polly also