similar to: [LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] RFC: LLVM incubation, or requirements for committing new backends

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 01:21:18PM -0700, Eric Christopher wrote: > > On Jul 16, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard at amd.com> wrote: > > > I am in favor of this. I think having specific criteria and time lines > > will be beneficial for both maintainers and reviewers. > > > > However, instead of having a separate branch, what do you think

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:44:25AM -0700, Owen Anderson wrote: > Tom, > > I think it might be productive to fork this thread to discuss making the requirements for upstreaming a new LLVM target more explicit and open. I'd also like to gauge interest in an idea I've discussed privately with a few community members, namely the concept of having a semi-official

Owen/Chandler/etc.., While I have no issue with having a more complete and documented method of submitting backends, the problem is the barrier to entry for some backends is being significantly raised, where they did not exist in the past. In the past AMD has reported issues that we have found from internal development to LLVM, along with patches in some cases. Some have been fixed, but others are

> On Feb 11, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:06:10PM +0000, Sam Kellett wrote: >> Would it be feasible to compile LLVM IR into shading language assembler? If >> so, is this already being done? >> > > The R600 backend does this in conjunction with the Open Source mesa3D > project:

> -----Original Message----- > From: Stellard, Thomas > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 9:07 AM > To: Justin Holewinski > Cc: Villmow, Micah; Tom Stellard; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: R600, a new backend for AMD GPUs > > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 08:54:41AM -0700, Justin Holewinski wrote: > > On May 28, 2012 6:44 AM, "Tom Stellard"

On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 09:37:37AM -0400, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:50:07PM -0400, Tom Stellard wrote: > > Hi, > > > > We've been working on an LLVM backend for the previous generation of AMD > > GPUs (HD 2XXX - HD 6XXX) and we would like submit it for inclusion in the > > main LLVM tree. The latest code can be found in this git

On May 28, 2012 6:44 AM, "Tom Stellard" <thomas.stellard at amd.com> wrote: > > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 02:37:26PM -0700, Justin Holewinski wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > I have a higher-level question regarding this back-end. If I have an LLVM > > IR module and run it through this back-end, it seems like the only output > > option is a binary

Is there a version of the AMDIL back-end that is compatible with LLVM 3.0/3.1? On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com>wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stellard, Thomas > > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 9:07 AM > > To: Justin Holewinski > > Cc: Villmow, Micah; Tom Stellard; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >

Michah, On Jul 17, 2012, at 7:53 AM, "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > Owen/Chandler/etc.., > While I have no issue with having a more complete and documented method of submitting backends, the problem is the barrier to entry for some backends is being significantly raised, where they did not exist in the past. In the past AMD has reported issues that we

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 08:54:41AM -0700, Justin Holewinski wrote: > On May 28, 2012 6:44 AM, "Tom Stellard" <thomas.stellard at amd.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 02:37:26PM -0700, Justin Holewinski wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > I have a higher-level question regarding this back-end. If I have an > LLVM > > >

Hi Tom, I have a higher-level question regarding this back-end. If I have an LLVM IR module and run it through this back-end, it seems like the only output option is a binary format. Is this a device binary, or another intermediate format? If the input LLVM IR module was a compute kernel, how would I go about executing it on an AMD GPU? Can I use the APP SDK to load the binary, perhaps

On 01.11.2012, at 14:44, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > Moving this thread to llvmdev. > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:09:34PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Oct 30, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: >>>> Hi Tom, >>>> >>>> Time is running short, but this would be great. The best place to

Moving this thread to llvmdev. On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:09:34PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Oct 30, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > >> Hi Tom, > >> > >> Time is running short, but this would be great. The best place to start is to begin decomposing the mega-patch into individual pieces that makes sense. Do you have

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 02:37:26PM -0700, Justin Holewinski wrote: > Hi Tom, > > I have a higher-level question regarding this back-end. If I have an LLVM > IR module and run it through this back-end, it seems like the only output > option is a binary format. Is this a device binary, or another > intermediate format? > > If the input LLVM IR module was a compute kernel,

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 10:56:26PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer wrote: > > On 01.11.2012, at 14:44, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > > Moving this thread to llvmdev. > > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:09:34PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > >> On Oct 30, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > >>>> Hi

Would it be feasible to compile LLVM IR into shading language assembler? If so, is this already being done? This would provide the obvious benefits of not having to differentiate between GLSL and HLSL (et al.) and the pleasure of using some other language to write and test the shader's that have support as an LLVM frontend. I've googled and found nothing about this. The only LLVM and

Chris, > On Nov 29, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: >> Hi Dimitri, >> >> Thanks for taking a look at the code. >> >> I went ahead and made all of these changes, and I reviewed the doxygen section >> of the Coding Standards document and updated the comments as well. >> I also fixed the issue mentioned by Ben with

Hi, We've been working on an LLVM backend for the previous generation of AMD GPUs (HD 2XXX - HD 6XXX) and we would like submit it for inclusion in the main LLVM tree. The latest code can be found in this git repository: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~tstellar/llvm/ in the r600-initial-review branch or if you prefer you can download the entire tree with this link:

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:50:07PM -0400, Tom Stellard wrote: > Hi, > > We've been working on an LLVM backend for the previous generation of AMD > GPUs (HD 2XXX - HD 6XXX) and we would like submit it for inclusion in the > main LLVM tree. The latest code can be found in this git repository: > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~tstellar/llvm/ in the r600-initial-review > branch

Dear Tom, Looks like setting LCOMMDirectiveType in AMDGPUMCAsmInfo.cpp is not needed anymore? I commented it out, and then LLVM got compiled fine. - D. 2012/9/6 Tom Stellard <tstellar at gmail.com>: > Hi, > > Now that --enable-experimental-targets build flags have been added to > the build systems. What needs to be done in order to get the R600 > backend added as an