similar to: [LLVMdev] Work in your project

Hi Guys, I checked the open projects on LLVM site, and superoptimizer theme seems to be quite interesting for me. So im going to write the LLVM superoptimizer (http://theory.stanford.edu/~aiken/publications/papers/asplos06.pdf) :) Is this theme still actual? Could you please advise me some usefull articles? -- Best regards, Sergey 2012/5/26 Serg Anohovsky <serg.anohovsky at gmail.com>: >

Here's an idea for a research project that I thought I'd put out there since probably nobody in my group will have time to follow up on it. It would be interesting to take ideas from this superoptimizer for x86: http://theory.stanford.edu/~aiken/publications/papers/asplos06.pdf http://theory.stanford.edu/~sbansal/superoptimizer.html and adapt them to run on LLVM code. It would

Hello. I have compiled the simple program: #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> int v1[10000]; int main() { int i; for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { v1[i] = i; } for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { printf("%d ", v1[i]); } return 0; } Next, I disasseble the executable file and have not found

2011/5/22 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > > LLVM does not have an autovectorizer. > > -Chris > Could you tell me please are you going to implement autovecorizer in LLVM in nearby future? -- Serg Anohovsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Serg Anohovsky <serg.anohovsky at gmail.com>wrote: > Hello. > I have compiled the simple program: > > #include <stdio.h> > #include <stdlib.h> > > int v1[10000]; > > int main() > { > int i; > > for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { > v1[i] = i; > } > > This loop

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Serg Anohovsky <serg.anohovsky at gmail.com> Date: 2011/5/22 Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] No SSE instructions To: Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> 2011/5/22 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > > On May 22, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > > On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Serg Anohovsky

On May 22, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Serg Anohovsky wrote: > > > 2011/5/22 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > > LLVM does not have an autovectorizer. > > -Chris > > Could you tell me please are you going to implement autovecorizer in LLVM in nearby future? I'm confident it will happen but have no idea on what timeline. -Chris -------------- next part

Hello, I want to present my project for GSoC 2011 for LLVM below. It would be very nice to hear suggestions and your opinion, thanks! Superoptimization for LLVM IR Objective This project focuses on implementing superoptimization algorithms targeted at the LLVM IR. The project uses arbitrary LLVM bitcode as a training set to discover new peephole optimizations that can be later integrated into

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Serg Anohovsky <serg.anohovsky at gmail.com> wrote: > This is should be optimized, but LLVM have not optimized this program. The > questions > were not about this specific example. I wont to understand, what vector > optimizations LLVM have? > How well implemented this theme in LLVM? When asking this type of question, you should be specific

"Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias at gmail.com> writes: > From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias at xilinx.com> > > Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias at xilinx.com> First off, I have handed maintainership off to Michael S. Tsirkin, so his word is now law. That said... there's nothing fundamentally *wrong* with this, but

"Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias at gmail.com> writes: > From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias at xilinx.com> > > Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias at xilinx.com> First off, I have handed maintainership off to Michael S. Tsirkin, so his word is now law. That said... there's nothing fundamentally *wrong* with this, but

virtio spec requires that all drivers set DRIVER_OK before using devices. While rpmsg isn't yet included in the virtio 1 spec, previous spec versions also required this. virtio rpmsg violates this rule: is calls kick before setting DRIVER_OK. The fix isn't trivial since simply calling virtio_device_ready earlier would mean we might get an interrupt in parallel with adding buffers.

virtio spec requires that all drivers set DRIVER_OK before using devices. While rpmsg isn't yet included in the virtio 1 spec, previous spec versions also required this. virtio rpmsg violates this rule: is calls kick before setting DRIVER_OK. The fix isn't trivial since simply calling virtio_device_ready earlier would mean we might get an interrupt in parallel with adding buffers.

A bit of feedback on this proposal: It worries me that you talk about "extending the number of transformations." The point of a superoptimizer is that it has no specific model of transformations. Rather, it is simply looking for cheap code fragments that are equivalent to expensive ones. You have not specified how you will perform equivalence checking between code sequences. The

Hi Andrey, > On 21.02.2011 20:27, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote: >> My work is not part of the LLVM mainline yet. But I would be happy to >> contribute with the code of my range analysis implementation if it can help >> you in something else. > We were thinking of adding VRP to LLVM too, though we were mostly > interested in Patterson's approach (i.e. not

This does not work. Rsync fails, and prints 'usage' ?rsync --files-from=list.txt -vrP felipe1982.com: ./ This does work. Note the period `.'. ?rsync --files-from=list.txt -vrP felipe1982.com:. ./ cat list.txt ./Documents/file1 ./Documents/file2 Why is the period _required_? -- Felipe

Hi Douglas, On 21.02.2011 20:27, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote: > My work is not part of the LLVM mainline yet. But I would be happy to > contribute with the code of my range analysis implementation if it can help > you in something else. We were thinking of adding VRP to LLVM too, though we were mostly interested in Patterson's approach (i.e. not connected with SSI form). It

David/Johan, I would love to claim victory, but I don't think that D34901 catches this case. However, I got interested and threw this together quickly: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35140. This does catch the below case. If people are interested I can add test cases and submit for formal review. FWIW, it does hit about 1/3 of all of the SPEC benchmarks. I haven't done any performance

> Predsimplify is believed to have bugs (it results in miscompiled > programs) and certainly isn't efficient (it was written before much of > include/ADT). Finally, predsimplify is likely to go away once I or > someone else writes a proper VRP pass. Whoever does this, I strongly encourage looking into using (or at least providing optional support for) the Apron library:

Hi, I read section 5, oop, of the R lang doc, and I am still not sure I understand how to build a class in R for oop. I thought that since I understand the oop syntex of Java and VB, I am wondering if the R programmig experts could help me out by comparing and contrasting the oop syntex in R with that of Java. For example, the basic class structure in Java is like this: public class Bicycle {