similar to: [LLVMdev] info on coming out of SSA form

Hi RamShankar, On top of Rafael mentioned ,Please check with lib/CodeGen/StrongPHIElimination.cpp and the papers like Budimlic, et al. Fast copy coalescing and live-range identification. // In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2002 Conference on Programming Language // Design and Implementation (Berlin, Germany, June 17 - 19, 2002). // PLDI '02. ACM, New York, NY, 25-32. Boissinot,

On 24 August 2012 02:27, Ramanarayanan, Ramshankar <Ramshankar.Ramanarayanan at amd.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > > I am a newbie to llvm. I am wondering what approach is used when coming out > of SSA form. I also appreciate pointers on where to look in the source code > for this phase. > lib/CodeGen/PHIElimination.cpp is probably what you want. > > Best regards,

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adam Nemet" <anemet at apple.com> > To: "Ramshankar Ramanarayanan" <Ramshankar.Ramanarayanan at amd.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 12:20:55 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] proof of concept for a loop fusion pass > > > On Jan 15, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Ramanarayanan,

If -simd option is specified opt could do validity checks, dependency analysis and such and recognize that a loop can be executed in parallel and as the -simd option is specified, convert the data types to vector instructions and add the scaling factor to the loop's iterators. Following this there can be an early machine function pass that sets up processor specific value in all of

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Ramanarayanan, Ramshankar <Ramshankar.Ramanarayanan at amd.com> wrote: > I am wondering how O4 vs O3 do inlining. With O4 it looks like inlining is > done first on each file and then at linking phase. Wouldn’t it be a better > alternative to delay inlining decisions until the link stage? Yes and no. Yes in the sense that you may make some better

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ramshankar Ramanarayanan" <Ramshankar.Ramanarayanan at amd.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Dibyendu Das" <Dibyendu.Das at amd.com> > Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, October 5, 2012 11:00:39 AM > Subject: RE: [LLVMdev]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Ramanarayanan, Ramshankar > <Ramshankar.Ramanarayanan at amd.com> wrote: > > I am wondering how O4 vs O3 do inlining. With O4 it looks like inlining > is > > done first on each file and then at linking phase. Wouldn’t it be a > better > >

Hi, We are proposing a loop fusion pass that tries to proactive fuse loops across function call boundaries and arbitrary control flow. http://reviews.llvm.org/D7008 With this pass, we get 103 loop fusions in SPECCPU INT 2006 462.libquantum with rate performance improving close to 2.5X in x86 (results from AMD A10-6700). I took some liberties in patching up some of the code in

I am wondering how O4 vs O3 do inlining. With O4 it looks like inlining is done first on each file and then at linking phase. Wouldn't it be a better alternative to delay inlining decisions until the link stage? Ram -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120829/dda45c1c/attachment.html>

Perhaps we can parameterize the size of the vector while vectorizing @ llvm and fix up the loop iterators in a target specific pass. -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Hal Finkel Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 8:30 PM To: Das, Dibyendu Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LLVM Loop

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dibyendu Das" <Dibyendu.Das at amd.com> > To: "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com>, "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, October 5, 2012 3:59:56 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LLVM Loop Vectorizer > > I think we should try to abstract the costs of

Hi, I have a question regarding StrongPHIElimination. With (weak) PHIElimination, register classes seems to take care of themselves, but with the Strong version, I get illegal virtual register for instruction. In this testcase, I define the PHI operands into a bigger (super) RC, than what the using MI can handle. Weak PHI elim handled this by copying the PHI operands into the right RC. The

Hello to all LLVM Developers. The LLVM IR is in strict SSA form (i.e. every variable is defined before it is used along every path from the entry to exit point)? According to the documentation, currently the LLVM IR is in the SSA form, but I don't see additional information about *strict* SSA form. The strict SSA form provide opportunities of optimization in register allocation, because is

On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Cameron Zwarich <zwarich at apple.com> wrote: > On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > >> On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:03 PM, Cameron Zwarich <zwarich at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> How much of the work is done here? I'd be happy to do the phi elimination part, since I basically did that

First let me confess that I am a R-novice. I am trying to fit a beta distribution for a dataset using fitdistr(MASS). I am having difficulties with it because the function tends to fit a distribution with a range of 0 to 1 (I guess). However, my dataset is not! Anytips or tricks will be very much appreciated. Many Thanks. T. S. Ramanarayanan, Ph.D. Aventis CropScience Research Triangle Park,

I've been getting the error for a release build for the last 24 hours or so. This is on Ubuntu Jaunty on x86. Known problem? If not, does anyone have an easy recipe for getting the build system to tell me the command line that's being used and to leave a preprocessed file sitting around? Thanks, John llvm[2]: Compiling UnreachableBlockElim.cpp for Release build

Hi, on http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#requirements you say you want to know about problems compiling llvm with gcc. I just tried compiling llvm and clang, using ./configure; make, and I got the following error, llvm[2]: Compiling StrongPHIElimination.cpp for Debug build StrongPHIElimination.cpp:1051: internal compiler error: in value_format, at dwarf2out.c:7218 Please submit a

There have been a couple problems recently, but I don't recognize this. Please see if you can minimize it and get a test case. You can run with 'make VERBOSE=1' to get the failing compile command. I then usually try -emit-llvm to see if the .bc output reproduces the error (with llc). The full story is a lot more complicated, I can give more details about things to try if you can't

Hi, I have a test-case for which I seem to be getting incorrect information from basic-aa alias-analysis. Here it is: #include <stdio.h> #define ARR_SIZE 4 char c[ARR_SIZE]; char *pc[ARR_SIZE]; char **ppc = pc; int main() { pc[0] = &c[0]; pc[1] = &c[1]; pc[2] = &c[2]; pc[3] = &c[3]; printf(" ppc: %p\n" " pc : %p\n" " c :

Hello, I am implementing a code transformation that would heavily benefit from the CodeGen/StrongPHIElimination pass, but on the two bytecode files I've tested it on so far llc segfaults on both. I see there have been no substantive changes to this code since the middle of last year. Could someone please tell me what the status of this pass is? Thank you. Marc -------------- next part