similar to: [LLVMdev] problem in implementing loop fission using ModulePass

Shanmuhka wrote: > I looked at the sanjoys patch for SIV Test. And i figured out that this is exactly what i need. > as the comments said, check if subscript A can possibly have the same value as B in analyseSIV(A,B) > but i didn't get How to use this information ? > > lets just say in the above program > When i use depends function it shows the dependency from load of x to

Hi, I am using LLVM for implementing LoopFission pass. I am using LoopPass. I know that for checking circular dependency in loop I have to use LoopDependenceAnalysis This is what i want to do. for(int i = 0; i< n ; i++){ s1 : a[i] = a[i] + x[i]; s2 : x[i] = x[i+1] + i*2 ; } /**there is no dependence from s2 to s1/ so after distribution(it

On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:47 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > It looks like we only attach the GNU_ranges_base to skeleton CUs, and > never use the attribute under non-fission. Is that right? It's not > obvious to me why we'd want to only include this under fission, but I > admittedly don't fully understand it anyway. > So we're not

On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:47 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> It looks like we only attach the GNU_ranges_base to skeleton CUs, and >> never use the attribute under non-fission. Is that right? It's not >> obvious to me why we'd want to only include this

It looks like we only attach the GNU_ranges_base to skeleton CUs, and never use the attribute under non-fission. Is that right? It's not obvious to me why we'd want to only include this under fission, but I admittedly don't fully understand it anyway. - Dave

As the the first review series of "WoW: the earth fission", we invited the chief task of WoW: theesigner Dave "Fargo" Kosak to discuss with you about his views on the mission design about earth fission. Q: And we will talk about the advantages and disadvantages in the region of 80-85 level? We aim to create the global catastrophe atmosphere; we apportioned the top region to

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > > > So Dehao and I have been dealing with some of the nitty gritty details of > > debug info with ThinLTO, specifically with Fission(Split DWARF). > > > > This applies to LTO as

> On May 4, 2017, at 4:53 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > Alrighty, a little fuzzy on how best to implement this - Adrian, you've probably got the most context here as to how to wrangle this. > > My first attempt was in IRMover.cpp, IRLinker::linkFunctionBody - after metadata is copied over, create a new subprogram derived from Dst.getSubprogram,

So Dehao and I have been dealing with some of the nitty gritty details of debug info with ThinLTO, specifically with Fission(Split DWARF). This applies to LTO as well, so I won't single out ThinLTO here. 1) Multiple CUs in a .dwo file Clang/LLVM produces a CU for each original source file - these CUs are kept through IR linking (thin or full) and produced as distinct CUs in the resulting

Can we convert OpenCL code with device fission to LLVM-IR ? If yes, please guide me. Regs, Barun -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

> On May 3, 2017, at 7:43 PM, Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> On May 3, 2017, at 2:59 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com <mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:09 PM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com <mailto:aprantl at apple.com>> wrote:

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:09 PM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > > On May 3, 2017, at 2:00 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > So Dehao and I have been dealing with some of the nitty gritty details > of debug info with ThinLTO, specifically with Fission(Split DWARF). > > > > This applies to LTO as well, so I

Hi all, I've sent it as a reply to another thread, but it was ill placed. Anyway, sorry about the duplication, but here it goes. I've been looking into the loop passes and noticed we do alias analysis and scalar evolution only, trying to clean up the loop as far as possible. I suppose that, if we were to define SCCs, split them into groups and re-arranging into multiple loops, we would

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org> wrote: > > I believe that would be a FunctionPass and registered in the > LoopDependencyAnalysis "runOnLoop()", so it can run when such pass is > called by the PassManager. Or should it be a completely separate pass > (VectorizationPass?) so we can control it from a separate command-line >

Sorry, trying to catch up a bit late… It sounds like having more than one CU per .dwo is outside of the intention of the DWARF specification (though not explicitly forbidden), since there is an implied 1-1 relationship between skeleton CU and .dwo. There is an explicit 1-1 relationship between skeleton CU and split-full CU (not .dwo). This suggests to me that if you want a .dwo to have multiple

Hello. I experience a problem when I try to run LLVM tests on the ARM "Beagle" board with Debian Lenny installed on it. When I execute "make check", I get the following output: llvm[0]: Running test suite make[1]: Entering directory `/mnt/markhor/llvm/nativeBuild/test' Making a new site.exp file... ( ulimit -t 600 ; ulimit -d 512000 ; ulimit -m 512000 ; ulimit -v 512000

Hello. I experience a problem when I try to run LLVM tests on the ARM "Beagle" board with Debian Lenny installed on it. When I execute "make check", I get the following output: llvm[0]: Running test suite make[1]: Entering directory `/mnt/markhor/llvm/nativeBuild/test' Making a new site.exp file... ( ulimit -t 600 ; ulimit -d 512000 ; ulimit -m 512000 ; ulimit -v 512000

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:57:00 -0700 Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com> wrote: > Shanmukha Rao wrote: > > I am using LLVM for implementing LoopFission pass. > > I am using LoopPass. > > I know that for checking circular dependency in loop I have to use > > LoopDependenceAnalysis > > > > This is what i want to do. > >         for(int i =

Shanmukha Rao wrote: > I am using LLVM for implementing LoopFission pass. > I am using LoopPass. > I know that for checking circular dependency in loop I have to use LoopDependenceAnalysis > > This is what i want to do. >         for(int i = 0; i< n ; i++){ > s1 : a[i] = a[i] + x[i]; > s2 : x[i] = x[i+1] + i*2 ; > } > >

On 4/27/12 2:05 PM, shanmuk rao wrote: > Hi, > I am using Loop pass ( runOnLoop() function ) > In this function I want to access all the Loops in all the functions > in the current Module > > the LoopInfo Pass only gives the Loops in the function where the > current Loop resides :-( > > Is there any other Pass by which I can access the Loops in others > functions