similar to: [LLVMdev] Missing IntelJITEvents and OProfileJIT libs

Hello Daniel, thank you very much for the clarification. I confirm that the two libraries showed up without specifying the two configure flags. Cheers, Alberto On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Malea, Daniel <daniel.malea at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Alberto, > > I can confirm the problem you mentioned, and will look at fixing it. You have indeed stumbled on a bug; the two libraries

Hi Alberto, I can confirm the problem you mentioned, and will look at fixing it. You have indeed stumbled on a bug; the two libraries mentioned should only be required if you build with profiling enabled (--enable-intel-jitevents --enable-oprofile flags to configure, or "-DUSE_INTEL_JITEVENTS -DUSE_OPROFILE" flags to cmake.) A workaround, for the time being, would be to ignore those

I believe the perf tool cannot profile/analyze the JITed code in MCJIT model. Can you please confirm this ? I was working on a patch to fix this. Another question, is the there any support to map the llvm IR with x86 generated assembly ? so its easier to analyze the code generator. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:53 AM, NAKAMURA Takumi <geek4civic at gmail.com> wrote: > s/ExecutionEngine/EE/ (or something like buzzword!) I don't really know the best bikeshed color here. Jim? My lame idea would be: ExecutionEngine -> JIT ExecutionEngine -> JIT/Legacy ExecutionEngine/MCJIT -> JIT/MC ExecutionEngine/OProfileJIT -> JIT/OProfile

Catching up on post-holiday emails. I may have comments on the more general stuff later, but wanted to respond to this bit more quickly. On Nov 22, 2012, at 3:05 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:53 AM, NAKAMURA Takumi <geek4civic at gmail.com> wrote: >> s/ExecutionEngine/EE/ (or something like buzzword!) > > I don't

Having something like this available in tree would definitely be useful. For simplicity, why don't we start with support for the second style? This is the long term useful one and would be a good starting point for getting the code in tree. Can you give a pointer to the patch so that I can assess the rough complexity? If it's simple enough, I'd be happy to help get it reviewed

Hi, On 2016-12-29 13:17:50 -0800, Philip Reames wrote: > Having something like this available in tree would definitely be > useful. Cool. > For simplicity, why don't we start with support for the second style? This > is the long term useful one and would be a good starting point for getting > the code in tree. Works for me. > Can you give a pointer to the patch so that

2012/11/22 Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>: > Hello LLVM & Clang hackers! > > Based on a discussion with Chris, I would like to propose a Great > Renaming of Things for the 3.3-era LLVM and Clang codebase. > > First and foremost, the two most significant changes I would like to make: > > 1) llvm/lib/VMCore/... -> llvm/lib/IR/... > > I've

Hi Bekket, Thank you for your reply. Earlier I came across a paper called "Dynamic Look Ahead Compilation: Hide JIT compilation latencies", it devised some methods for JIT compilation of functions before the actual call takes place by using call graph analysis, branch probabilities to generate a list of functions with high likelihood of execution in near future. In my opinion it

It is my understanding that all you need to do is specify let isTarget = 1 in your .td file and it will generate target specific intrinsics. This should allow you to keep the IntrinsicsPTX.td file in the same location. Micah From: Justin Holewinski [mailto:justin.holewinski at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 6:13 AM To: Alberto Magni Cc: Villmow, Micah; LLVM Developers Mailing List

Hi, On 2017-02-01 23:20:40 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > > Can you give a pointer to the patch so that I can assess the rough > > complexity? If it's simple enough, I'd be happy to help get it > > reviewed and in. If it's more complicated, I probably won't have the > > time to assist. > > Patch (and a prerequisite) attached. Took me a while to get

Hi Justin, sorry for the delay, I have been busy. Micah's proposal requires to move the definitions of the intrinsics from include/llvm/IntrinsicsPTX.td to lib/Target/PTX/PTXIntrinsics.td thus allowing the generation of the file PTXGenIntrinsics.inc which will be included by PTXIntrinsicInfo.cpp. This is a quite big modification, do you agree with this ? Or do you have a better solution.

Hello LLVM & Clang hackers! Based on a discussion with Chris, I would like to propose a Great Renaming of Things for the 3.3-era LLVM and Clang codebase. First and foremost, the two most significant changes I would like to make: 1) llvm/lib/VMCore/... -> llvm/lib/IR/... I've discussed potential names for the VMCore (or LLVMCore) library with lots of folks, and the best idea anyone

On Nov 23, 2011 6:57 AM, "Alberto Magni" <alberto.magni86 at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > > Alberto, > > The AMDIL backend solves your problem with intrinsic overloading this way: > > def int_AMDIL_mad : GCCBuiltin<"__amdil_mad">, TernaryIntFloat; >

Alberto, The AMDIL backend solves your problem with intrinsic overloading this way: def int_AMDIL_mad : GCCBuiltin<"__amdil_mad">, TernaryIntFloat; Where TernaryIntFloat is defined as: class TernaryIntFloat : Intrinsic<[llvm_anyfloat_ty], [LLVMMatchType<0>, LLVMMatchType<0>, LLVMMatchType<0>], []>; This allows us to write a

Hi Priyendra, There is support for oprofile and Intel(r) VTune(tm) Performance Analyzer, but either one needs to be explicitly turned on during the build process. If you use MCJIT (as opposed to the older JIT) then oprofile support isn't in place yet. Both of these work by providing a JITEventListener that receives notification when new code is emitted and hooks it up to the profiling tool

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Alberto Magni <alberto.magni86 at gmail.com>wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Justin Holewinski > <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Alberto Magni < > alberto.magni86 at gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Justin, > >> > >> attached you find

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com>wrote: > It is my understanding that all you need to do is specify let isTarget = > 1 in your .td file and it will generate target specific intrinsics. This > should allow you to keep the IntrinsicsPTX.td file in the same location. > So we keep the intrinsics defined in include/llvm/IntrinsicsPTX.td?

Yeah, that's probably how I'd do it. Might be useful if you guys want to contribute that as a command line option Kevin. -eric On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Kevin Modzelewski <kmod at dropbox.com> wrote: > We do this in Pyston using a JITEventListener that just disassembles the > output; it's "it works let's move on"-quality: >

I'd like to know if there is a way to plot your stuff and have a grid on the plot, in which the grid falls exactly where it should, i.e. on the axis labels. E.g., if on x axis I have the labels -4,-2,0,2,4 and on y -1,-0.5,0,0.5,1 the command grid(5,5) puts the grid out of place, just on 0 it falls right. Any hint? Thanks Alessandro Magni --