similar to: [LLVMdev] Thanks LLVM Team!

Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> writes: >> When I asked about enhancing scheduler heuristics a month or so ago, I >> got a response about a MachineInstr scheduler and that that was the way >> of the LLVM future. Is that so? Is the ScheduleDAG going away? > > You sent a lengthy RFC on Apr 20 that demonstrated you aren't > following developments on trunk.

I just wanted to say Congratulations and thank you to the Centos Team for all of the work on Centos 6 - I know the last few months have not been easy - but the real benefit will be that Centos 6 will be as good and as stable as Centos 5 has been for me and everyone who has been using it for the past 4 years. It has never a matter of just getting it done - but getting it done right. Thank You

Congratulations to all active members of the CentOS Folding at home team for breaking through the 500 barrier for team rankings. Well done all. But we still need more members for work unit crunching and more machines too. Further information can be found at http://www.sharons.org.uk/cf.html, along with information about the use of munin and foldingathome. Sharon. -- 17:00:06 up 11 days,

Congratulations to all members of the team for contributing towards breaking through the 2,000 place barrier. In the overall team rankings we are now in position 1885! Considering how 'young' the team is in terms of how long its been going thats a stupendous achievement! Well done all! From now on we can watch our teams ranking on

On May 9, 2012, at 8:34 AM, dag at cray.com wrote: > Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> writes: > >>> When I asked about enhancing scheduler heuristics a month or so ago, I >>> got a response about a MachineInstr scheduler and that that was the way >>> of the LLVM future. Is that so? Is the ScheduleDAG going away? >> >> You sent a lengthy RFC

Fellows, I'm pleased to announce that David Goncalves has now joined the NUT Team. David is working for some time on the NUT Python support, through: - the PyNUT module, which currently provides client access, and which will soon provide some configuration helpers, - the NUT-Monitor client GUI. So, congratulations to David for joining the team! and thanks for his much appreciated

I'm getting the following when building llvm-gcc with an optimized set of LLVM libraries: /ptmp/dag/build.llvm-gcc-4.2.trunk.official.opt/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/./gcc/xgcc -B/ptmp/dag/build.llvm-gcc-4.2.trunk.official.opt/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/./gcc/ -B/cray/iss/compiler/cost/tools/llvm-tools/llvm/install.trunk.official.opt/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/

Congratulations to the CentOS folding at home team for breaking through the rank 400 barrier. The next target is the rank 250 :) More information about the team can be found at http://www.sharons.org.uk/cf.html, and we welcome new members and their machines. We always need more members and more machines too :) Sharon. -- 18:47:57 up 8 days, 20:56, 2 users, load average: 1.30, 1.76, 1.61 A

On Thursday 09 July 2009 10:01, John Criswell wrote: > Dear All, > > To add to this, what you want to do is find the appropriate debug stop > point intrinsic and then use it to look up the information for that > instruction. Ick. So line number information is only available at debug stop points? That's bad when compiling optimized code since the debug stops kill optimization,

Congratulations to all the CentOS folding at home team members for breaking through the 200 world ranking barrier. Its taken a bit of time but we've all helped to do it. Our next target is obviously to achieve 150th in the world ranking. But, to help achieve that we're going to need more members and more machines. So, if you think it sounds interesting and you want to learn more, then

Well, it''s running about three days with two virtual machines without any problem. Thanks all and congratulations! I notice that xen0 doesn''t have SMP support enabled. Does it make sense enable SMP on xenU? -- Flávio Bruno Leitner <fbl@conectiva.com.br> [ E74B 0BD0 5E05 C385 239E 531C BC17 D670 7FF0 A9E0 ] -------------------------------------------------------

Congratulations to each and every member of the CentOS Folding at home team for helping to break through the 250 ranking barrier. This means that we're now in the top 250 of the world! Well done to each and every one of you :) The netx target of 200 will be harder, but achievable. Keep on with the good work of crunching those work units, the team benefits with the team ranking, and

Hi everyone, As I've mentioned before we are doing some work on the LLVM scheduler to improve it. Specifically, we are working to get loads and stores to move past each other when possible. When I asked about enhancing scheduler heuristics a month or so ago, I got a response about a MachineInstr scheduler and that that was the way of the LLVM future. Is that so? Is the ScheduleDAG going

Hi Everyone, It is getting to be that time again. I've scoured llvm-commits and collected a list of some of the major features we've developed since the last status update (from Feb 21). Please take a look and send me (off list) additions, feedback, corrections, etc. As usual, if I missed something, it's probably because there is such a huge amount of stuff happening,

Because the intrinsics uses vector types (same as gcc). - Jan ----- Original Message ----- > From: "dag at cray.com" <dag at cray.com> > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:26 PM > Subject: [LLVMdev] X86 FMA4 > > We're migrating to LLVM 3.1 and trying to use the upstream FMA patterns. > > Why is VFMADDSD4

Hey Jan and Dave, It's not obvious, but there is a significant scalar performance issue following the GCC intrinsics. Let's look at the VFMADDSD pattern. We're operating on scalars with undefineds as the remaining vector elements of the operands. This sounds okay, but when one looks closer... vmovsd fp4_+1088(%rip), %xmm3 # fpppp.f:647 vmovaps %xmm3, 18560(%rsp)

On Tuesday 15 September 2009 08:16, Olivier Meurant wrote: > llvm-gcc -v > Using built-in specs. > Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu > > gcc -v > Using built-in specs. > Target: i486-linux-gnu Different targets. It's no surprise 486 code would perform much worse than i686 code. These compilers need to target the same architecture. Ideally the Makefile would include

If you didn't catch it, there has been a recent post to the mailing list that seems like it might be relevant to your interests: <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-June/051298.html> Direct link to the project page: <http://code.google.com/p/pymothoa/> --Sean Silva On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Travis Oliphant <travis at continuum.io> wrote: > Hi all,

Dear All, Historically, we *have* permitted job announcements for jobs that require or desire expertise with LLVM or one of it's sub-projects. To the best of my knowledge, we've never required that the position announcement state that the job will contribute directly to the LLVM project (or its sub-projects) or that the code created by the position be open source. As an example,

Hi All, Here's the first draft of the release announcement for LLVM 1.9 that I'm working on. I'm sure I've forgotten and overlooked something, if so, please let me know! ----- 8< ------ 8< ----- <notes> Note: LLVM now correctly builds itself and passes all regression tests on Darwin X86 and Darwin PPC. No one has tried other targets to my knowledge. We hit