similar to: [LLVMdev] Extending GetElementPointer, or Premature Linearization Considered Harmful

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 2000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Extending GetElementPointer, or Premature Linearization Considered Harmful"

2012 May 04
0
[LLVMdev] Extending GetElementPointer, or Premature Linearization Considered Harmful
Hi Preston, On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com> wrote: > > which produces > > %arrayidx24 = getelementptr inbounds [100 x [100 x i64]]* %A, i64 > %arrayidx21.sum, i64 %add1411, i64 %add > store i64 0, i64* %arrayidx24, align 8 > {{{(5 + ((3 + %n) * %n)),+,(2 * %n * %n)}<%for.cond1.preheader>,+,(4 *
2017 Jul 24
5
Ifelse statements and combining columns
Hi everyone, I'm having some trouble with my ifelse statements. I'm trying to put 12 conditions within 3 groups. Here is the code I have so far: dat$cond <- ifelse(test = dat$cond == "cond1" | dat$cond == "cond2" | dat$cond == "cond3" dat$cond == "cond4" yes = "Uniform" no = ifelse(test =
2012 May 04
0
[LLVMdev] Extending GetElementPointer, or Premature Linearization Considered Harmful
Hi Preston, >>> As noted in the GEP FAQ, GEPs don't support variable-length arrays; >> >> that's not quite right. The problem is only with arrays of variable length >> arrays, and more generally with arrays where the element type has variable >> size (this occurs with Ada, which has all kinds of funky variable sized types, >> for example). > >
2012 May 04
3
[LLVMdev] Extending GetElementPointer, or Premature Linearization Considered Harmful
Duncan Sands wrote: >> As noted in the GEP FAQ, GEPs don't support variable-length arrays; > > that's not quite right. The problem is only with arrays of variable length > arrays, and more generally with arrays where the element type has variable > size (this occurs with Ada, which has all kinds of funky variable sized types, > for example). You're right, though
2017 Jul 24
0
Ifelse statements and combining columns
Not a reproducible example, so a bit of guessing here, but a) don't try to assign results to variables inside the ifelse. That is, remove all the single-equals signs and "test" variables. If you really need to conditionally assign variables then use "if"... but chances are good you don't need that. b) "closure" is effectively another word
2012 Jan 26
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 15:36 -0600, Sebastian Pop wrote: >> arm-none-linux-gnueabi > > Indeed, adding -ccc-host-triple arm-none-linux-gnueabi I also get Minor remark: please use -target instead of -ccc-host-triple that is now deprecated. Thanks for looking at this testcase. Sebastian -- Qualcomm
2012 Jan 26
2
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 15:36 -0600, Sebastian Pop wrote: > arm-none-linux-gnueabi Indeed, adding -ccc-host-triple arm-none-linux-gnueabi I also get vectorization (even though I don't get vectorization when targeting x86_64). I'll let you know what I find. -Hal -- Hal Finkel Postdoctoral Appointee Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory
2002 Mar 04
2
Plotting a x axis from a vector with rownames
Hi all, suppose there is a vector y with rownames: > y cond1 cond2 cond3 cond4 78.952 87.308 86.490 74.040 how can I easily plot this vector using the rownames? plot(y) gives me a plot with a x-axis from 1 to 4 in 0.5 steps, also plot(rownames(y), y) and plot(y ~ rownames(y) don't work. I know I can build a x-axis with axis(1, ...), but in this case I need a character string like
2012 Jan 26
3
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 15:12 -0600, Sebastian Pop wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > Thanks! Did you compile with any non-default flags other than -mllvm > > -vectorize? > > I used -O3 and -vectorize, no other non-default flags. If I run clang -O3 -mllvm -vectorize -S -emit-llvm -o test.ll test.c then I get no
2019 Oct 30
2
How to make ScalarEvolution recompute SCEV values?
Hello all, I’m pretty new to LLVM. I'm writing a pass for loop optimization. I clone and rearrange loops, setting the cloned loop as the original loop’s parent. This can be done multiple times, until there is no more work to do. The trouble is, after the first time I do this, the cloned loop's SCEVs become unknown types when they should be AddRecExpr. If I re-run the whole pass on the
2009 Sep 04
1
User defined function's argument as Subset function's input
Dear R users, I have a data where I desire to subset according to certain conditions. However, the script is very messy as there are about 30 distinct conditions. (i.e. same script but with different conditions) I would like to make a user defined function so that I can input the desired conditions and just get the results accordingly. Below is an arbitrary data set & sample statements
2017 Apr 13
3
Question on induction variable simplification pass
Hi all, It looks like the induction variable simplification pass prefers doing a zero-extension to compute the wider trip count of loops when extending the IV. This can sometimes result in loss of information making ScalarEvolution's analysis conservative which can lead to missed performance opportunities. For example, consider this loopnest- int i, j; for(i=0; i< 40; i++) for(j=0;
2012 Apr 23
0
[LLVMdev] SIV tests in LoopDependence Analysis, Sanjoy's patch
Hi, When I write various test cases and explore how they're handled by the code in LoopDependenceAnalysis::analysePair, I'm surprised. This loop collects pairs of subscripts from the source and destination refs. * // Collect GEP operand pairs (FIXME: use GetGEPOperands from BasicAA), adding* * // trailing zeroes to the smaller GEP, if needed.* * GEPOpdsTy destOpds, srcOpds;* *
2013 Jul 26
6
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Analysis of the expensive compile-time overhead of Polly Dependence pass
Hi Sebastian, Recently, I found the "Polly - Calculate dependences" pass would lead to significant compile-time overhead when compiling some loop-intensive source code. Tobias told me you found similar problem as follows: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14240 My evaluation shows that "Polly - Calculate dependences" pass consumes 96.4% of total compile-time overhead
2011 Jun 17
4
profile plot in R
Hi friends, I have a matrix with following format. group var1 var2 .......varN c1 group1 1.2399 1.4990....-1.4829 c2 group4 0.8989 0.7849.....1.8933 ... ... c100 group10 ..... I want to draw a profile plot of each condition c1 to c100, which rows in above matrix and each line representing a row should be uniquely colored according to the group(1 to 10). I think this is simple task
2012 Apr 12
6
[LLVMdev] SIV tests in LoopDependence Analysis, Sanjoy's patch
Hi, Here is a preliminary (monolithic) version you can comment on. This is still buggy, however, and I'll be testing for and fixing bugs over the next few days. I've used your version of the strong siv test. Thanks! -- Sanjoy Das. http://playingwithpointers.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: patch.diff Type: application/octet-stream
2013 Jul 29
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Analysis of the expensive compile-time overhead of Polly Dependence pass
On 07/29/2013 09:15 AM, Sven Verdoolaege wrote: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 07:37:14AM -0700, Tobias Grosser wrote: >> On 07/29/2013 03:18 AM, Sven Verdoolaege wrote: >>> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 04:42:25PM -0700, Tobias Grosser wrote: >>>> Sven: In terms of making the behaviour of isl easier to understand, >>>> it may make sense to fail/assert in case
2012 Jan 26
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > Thanks! Did you compile with any non-default flags other than -mllvm > -vectorize? I used -O3 and -vectorize, no other non-default flags. Sebastian -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc is a member of Code Aurora Forum
2012 Jan 26
2
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 14:34 -0600, Sebastian Pop wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > >> enabling vectorization gets the performance down by 80% on ARM. > >> I will prepare a reduced testcase and try to find out the reason. > >> As a first shot, I would say that this comes from the vectorization of > >> code
2011 Oct 19
3
[LLVMdev] Question regarding basic-block placement optimization
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote: > > On Oct 18, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > As for why it should be an IR pass, mostly because once the selection dag >> runs through the code, we can never recover all of the freedom we have at >> the IR level. To start with, splicing MBBs around requires known about