similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM support for ia64 speculative Instructions

Hello, I want to run SPEC2000 benchmark in LLVM to check correctness of a llvm module which I wrote. How to run SPEC2000 benchmark in LLVM? Unnikrishnan C -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

Hi Unnikrishnan C, On 18/01/13 09:09, unni_c at csa.iisc.ernet.in wrote: > Hello, > > I want to run SPEC2000 benchmark in LLVM to check correctness of a llvm > module which I wrote. How to run SPEC2000 benchmark in LLVM? > > Unnikrishnan C do you know how to run LLVM's nightly testsuite? It has support for SPEC. When you configure LLVM you need to use --with-externals to

Hello, I modified the PathProfiling.cpp and run opt -inesrt-path-profiling. it works correctly ,but after path-profile is complete in Verifier::visitTerminatorInst it prints "Terminator found in the middle of a basic block!" . error is I added two basic blocks after return basic block and return has br label %newprint when printed in pathprofile module but in

Hi, On 04/19/2013 09:40 AM, Unnikrishnan C wrote: > access to memory locations. > > example > suppose we have > A[ind1[i]=expr; (s1) > and A1[i]=A[ind2[i]] (s2) > > to find what is the probability for RAW dependence from s1-->s2 and WAR > dependence from s2--->s1 and WAW dependence from s1-->s1 > There exists the

----------------- Hello, I want to do a memory dependence profiling. Is there any freely available implementation of memory dependence profiling implementations in LLVM which I can modify for my own use? Unnikrishnan C -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

Hi: I worked on loop-optimizations techniques previously using ORC. Currently i see lots of research on speculative parallelization of loops ... specially because multicores [for embedded systems] is becoming popular. In other words, because you have multiple cores, you can start some loops [Fast-Track] as if there is no or low data-dependence [Partial Parallel Loop-Nest]. The normal part is to

Hi all, I came across an issue caused by the Call-Graph Simplify Pass. Here is a a small repro: ``` define double @foo(double %a1, double %a2, double %a3) #0 { entry: %a_mul = fmul double %a1, %a2 %a_cmp = fcmp ogt double %a3, %a_mul br i1 %a_cmp, label %a.then, label %a.end a.then: %a_div = fdiv double %a_mul, %a3 br label %a.end a.end: %a_factor = phi double [ %a_div, %a.then ],

Hi everyone, Some Intel processors have a newly disclosed vulnerability named Load Value Injection. One pager on Load Value Injection: https://software.intel.com/security-software-guidance/software-guidance/load-value-injection Deep dive on Load Value Injection: https://software.intel.com/security-software-guidance/insights/deep-dive-load-value-injection I wrote this compiler pass that can

Hi folks, Firstly; apologies in advance for what is a head wrecker of keeping on top of the speculative mitigations and also if this is a duplicate email; my first copy didn't seem to make it into the archive. Also a disclaimer that I may have misunderstood elements of the below but please bear with me. I write this hoping to find out a bit more about the state of the relevant kernel

It’s true, I am working on this. I have committed the initial patch to add constrained intrinsics for the basic FP operations. This has the desired effect of preventing optimizations that would violate strict FP semantics with regard to rounding mode and exception status, but it also prevents many safe optimizations. Later this year I’ll be going through the code base and trying to teach

On 31 July 2013 11:56, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > The slightly orthogonal question to safety is the cost of execution. For > most intrinsics that represent CPU instructions, executing them > speculatively is cheaper than a conditional jump, but this is not the case > for all (for example, some forms of divide instructions on in-order RISC >

Hi, Has something related to speculative tracing changed between s10 FCS and the more recent nevada builds ? I was trying the specopen.d script from the Dtrace guide on a nevada machine and it failed with : dtrace: failed to enable ''./spec.d'': DIF program content is invalid To try and narrow things down a bit I wrote the following short script. This works fine on s10, but

Hi, I am involved in the task of achieving speculative paralellisation in llvm. I have started my work by trying to see if a simple for loop can be paralellised in llvm.. The problem is i want to know how to check if a program is automatically parallelised when compiled with llvm or if explicitly need to do it how can i go about paralellising a for loop using llvm compiler infrsatructure.how

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

Hi Tobias: Thanks for replying . So if I understand correctly, in LLVM currently, the Polyhedral model is being built ( LLVM IR -------> Poly Model ----------> LLVM IR ). This is for compile-time optimizations of loop-nests [e.g. loop-transformations to expose parallelism or improve locality etc]. Yes, thats great for optimizing loop-nests. As an additional, since the real value of LLVM

Hi everyone! I want to clarify the purpose and design of SESES. Thus far, I've characterized it as an LVI mitigation which is somewhat incorrect. SESES was built as a "big hammer." It is intended to protect against many side channel vulnerabilities (Spectre v1, Spectre v4, LVI, etc, etc) even though it was built in response to LVI. For folks protecting against LVI, this is an

At some point while browsing the LLVM web site, I stumbled across a paper that discussed using LLVM with an analysis technique that used dataflow analysis and generated speculative data for code. They used the technique on binutils and found a number of errors in that package. Does anyone recall the specific paper/system so that I can revisit it? I tried a number of google searches but I keep

Hi Renato, No, I cannot, but in case it is, I want to take advantage of this. In case it is not, the instrumentation code will detect this at runtime and simply roll back to the original version. I will always keep an original version available, in addition to the ones I modify with Polly. However, initially I will speculate that it is allocated contiguously. Thanks, Alexandra

[+current llvm-dev address] On 03/15/2017 09:23 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: > Hi Samuel, > > What are you taking about? ;) > > The only way to get a SIGFPE from a floating-point division by zero is > to modify the floating-point environment to enable those exceptions. > We don't support that (*). In the default (supported) environment, > floating point division is well

Sub:-code added by my path profiler module not executing with llvm-gcc -03 When compile with llvm-gcc -O3 the path profile result shows frequency count of zero for all paths ins some functions I have four functions insert,delete,print and main. It prints correct values for delete's and main's paths and zero values for print's and insert's paths. This problem occurs only with