similar to: [LLVMdev] Benchmarking for automatic parallelization project

Hi Is it possible to combine multiple LLVM with PRAM /XMT? Prof. Uzi Vishkin (Univ. of Maryland) had created 64 cores PRAM: Parallel Random Access Memory / Explicit Multi Threading. Example: 1. The programmer can create multiple LLVM and run the same instruction on different LLVM, or create a pipeline on multiple LLVM (different instruction on different LLVM, but the same data). 2. Execution on

Hi all, I am looking appropriate Benchmarking for the assessment of automatic parallelization project. What Benchmarking do you suggest me? regards neda -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111201/95e7779c/attachment.html>

> I am looking appropriate Benchmarking for the assessment of automatic > parallelization project. What Benchmarking do you suggest me? Do you mean auto-parallelization or auto-vectorization? If it's the latter, I sugguest you find scientific or graphic applications. I don't think there is auto-parallelization benchmark, however. Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer

Hi Hal, > For auto-vectorization, look at: > http://polaris.cs.uiuc.edu/~garzaran/doc/pact11.pdf > http://polaris.cs.uiuc.edu/~maleki1/TSVC.tar.gz > > If you're looking for auto-parallelization, I can ask around. Thanks for the sharing. If that doesn't bother you too much, I would like to know auto-parallelization benchmarks. :p Just curious. I was thinking that

On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 11:53 +0800, 陳韋任 wrote: > > I am looking appropriate Benchmarking for the assessment of automatic > > parallelization project. What Benchmarking do you suggest me? > > Do you mean auto-parallelization or auto-vectorization? If it's the latter, I > sugguest you find scientific or graphic applications. For auto-vectorization, look at:

On 02/07/2012 07:04 PM, Preston Briggs wrote: >>> The 1st loop is trivially parallel. I think Polly would recognize >>> this and do good things. >> >> This case is trivial. >> >> But keep in mind that unsigned loop ivs and integers can cause modulo >> wrapping which is not trivial to handle - Both Polly, but also any other >> tool, need to

Hi all, I was just wondering if this is the intended behavior. Here is my setup: controller def index respond_to do |f| f.xml { render :xml => true } f.html { render :layout => :none } end end In my views I have a file for each type index.herb index.xerb The first request I send is cached and interferes with the other one. For example, if I send an xml request

Hi, We have the following shares listed in smb.conf users cannot access the samba share directly i.e. \\sambaserver\rixilr or \\sambaserver\bridges error messages '/ibe/dusty/RIXILE Share/Bridges' does not exist or permission denied when connecting to [bridges] Error was Permission denied Aug 21 10:09:12 dish sambaserver[27859]: [2015/08/21 10:09:12.964101, 0]

In the smb.conf I have escaped the path to a samba share in quotes. path = "/ibe/dusty/RIXILE Share/RIXILE" all the users needs to do is go to \\sambaserver\rixilr but get's the following error message does not exist or permission denied when connecting to [rixilr] Error was Permission denied Is this correct syntax? On 24/08/15 11:18, Rowland Penny wrote: > On 24/08/15

i recently setup a dhcp at my home and now i am getting these errors in my logs and was wondering if i set something up wrong? --------------------- dhcpd Begin ------------------------ Unknown Entries: Unable to add forward map from STEVEN-DELL.dusty.home to 192.168.1.100: timed out: 4 Time(s) Unable to add forward map from laptop.dusty.home to 192.168.1.104: timed out: 4

On 24/08/15 10:49, Sundeep Singh Nanuwa wrote: > Hi, > > Is there any issues using spaces in directories paths? > > On 21/08/15 11:06, Sunny wrote: >> Hi, >> >> We have the following shares listed in smb.conf >> >> users cannot access the samba share directly i.e. >> >> \\sambaserver\rixilr >> or >> \\sambaserver\bridges >>

On Dec 31, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Preston Briggs wrote: > Hi Chris, > > I wish we could talk about this at a white board, over a period of > weeks, but email will have to do… That would be nice :) > I don't entirely understand your position about dominance frontiers. > In my experience, they were trivial to compute, requiring very little > time, space, or code. Rereading

> -----Original Message----- > From: Cameron McInally <cameron.mcinally at nyu.edu> > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 4:02 PM > To: Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com>; LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvm- > dev at lists.llvm.org> > Cc: Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com>; Kaylor, Andrew > <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> > Subject: [EXT]

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >The question her is, > if the linear recurrence example and similar code can be easily optimized > within the high level polyhedral abstraction without having to rewrite on > the LLVM-IR layer. If you provide the expected output, I may give this a > try. I expect it's more of a research problem,

On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:58 AM, John Regehr wrote: > http://blog.regehr.org/archives/761 It's an interesting post, but I'd like to point out that it is a non-goal for the project to be actively hostile to users of the compiler. :) It is useful to have debugging tools for people who really care, but "exploiting" undefined behavior just for the sake of breaking code is a

>> 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 Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Javed Absar <javed.absar at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Tobias: > > Thanks for replying . So if I understand correctly,  in LLVM currently, the > Polyhedral model is being built ( LLVM IR -------> Poly Model ----------> > LLVM IR ). > This is for compile-time optimizations of loop-nests [e.g. > loop-transformations to expose parallelism

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Javed Absar <javed.absar at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Tobias: >> >> Thanks for replying . So if I understand correctly,  in LLVM currently, the >> Polyhedral model is being built ( LLVM IR -------> Poly Model ----------> >> LLVM IR ).

Hi, I am looking into something similar as well for auto-parallelization i.e. some sort of low level support at the IR level for parallelization. I'd be interested in collaborating with anyone who is working on the same. >From a brief look at the architectural overview of Polly, it seems as if the parallel code generation is being done at the IR level since the input file is an LLVM IR

Hey all, I'm relatively new to the R-environment. I'm having a bit of trouble with encapsulation. I have a globally declared variable that doesn't update it when I change it in a function. For example when I run the following function >deckn<-NULL >deck1<-1 #52 card deck >deck<-function() { #Creating a standard deck deck1<-c(1:52) deckn<-deck1 #Creating n