similar to: [LLVMdev] missing polly 3.2 branch?

Bill, > Hi Pawel, > > Could you branch polly as well for the 3.2 release? We will need to contact the 'polly' guys to figure out how best to add it to the release (testing, etc.). Sure. But I do not know much about polly so 'polly' guys please fill me on the details. For the 3.2 release I will need: - to know how to build it seems to be covered here

On Nov 13, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Pawel Wodnicki <pawel at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > Bill, > >> Hi Pawel, >> >> Could you branch polly as well for the 3.2 release? We will need to contact the 'polly' guys to figure out how best to add it to the release (testing, etc.). > > Sure. > > But I do not know much about polly so 'polly' guys please

Hi Pawel, Could you branch polly as well for the 3.2 release? We will need to contact the 'polly' guys to figure out how best to add it to the release (testing, etc.). -bw On Nov 12, 2012, at 5:48 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: > Tobi, > It appears that a polly 3.2 branch wasn't created last night. Shouldn't there be > one now that polly

Hi all, PolyBench (http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~pouchet/software/polybench/) is a well-known benchmark for polyhedral compiler. Since LLVM-Polly http://polly.llvm.org/) has provided a very good polyhedral optimizer for LLVM, could we add this benchmark to LLVM test-suite? I have attached the patch file to add PolyBench to LLVM test-suite. Best wishes, Star Tan -------------- next part

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 05:17:28PM -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 04:43:42PM -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 03:53:50PM -0700, Eli

Tobi, Any chance that you or one of the other developers could put the missing polly-3.2.tar.gz source tarball up on the llvm 3.2 downloads page? I am still finding that... http://llvm.org/releases/3.2/polly-3.2.src.tar.gz or http://llvm.org/releases/3.2/polly-3.2.tar.gz are still a dead links. Jack

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 05:17:28PM -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 04:43:42PM -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Jack Howarth

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 04:43:42PM -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 03:53:50PM -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: > >> > While testing llvm/polly svn on

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 03:53:50PM -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: > > While testing llvm/polly svn on x86_64-apple-darwin10/11/12, I noticed that three darwin > > specific polly-test regressions exist. At least part of these failures appear to be due > > to lli on darwin not accepting

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 04:43:42PM -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 03:53:50PM -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Jack Howarth

Tobi, What is the situation with -polly-codegen-isl in polly svn? Should we be testing polly without cloog as the default configuration or will cloog use not be deprecated in 3.3? Jack

Dear Tobias Grosser, Thank you so much for your kind reply. Your advice is very helpful and inspiring. At 2013-03-18 20:40:50,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 03/17/2013 11:54 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> Hello Tobi, >> >> I am interested in Polly project. Polly seems to be a very promising tool to find out program parallelization based on LLVM

On 03/19/2013 11:02 AM, Star Tan wrote: > > Dear Tobias Grosser, > > Today I have rebuilt the LLVM-Polly in Release mode. The configuration of my own testing machine is: Intel Pentium Dual CPU T2390(1.86GHz) with 2GB DDR2 memory. > I evaluated the Polly using PolyBench and Mediabench. It takes too long time to evaluate the whole LLVM-testsuite, so I just choose the Mediabench from

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 03:53:50PM -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: >> > While testing llvm/polly svn on x86_64-apple-darwin10/11/12, I noticed that three darwin >> > specific polly-test

Dear Tobias Grosser, Today I have rebuilt the LLVM-Polly in Release mode. The configuration of my own testing machine is: Intel Pentium Dual CPU T2390(1.86GHz) with 2GB DDR2 memory. I evaluated the Polly using PolyBench and Mediabench. It takes too long time to evaluate the whole LLVM-testsuite, so I just choose the Mediabench from LLVM-testsuite. The preliminary results of Polly compiling

Dear Tobias, Thank you very much for your very helpful advice. Yes, -debug-pass and -time-passes are two very useful and powerful options when evaluating the compile-time of each compiler pass. They are exactly what I need! With these options, I can step into details of the compile-time overhead of each pass. I have finished some preliminary testing based on two randomly selected files from

On 10/21/2012 03:46 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 02:31:50PM -0700, Tobias Grosser wrote: >> On 10/21/2012 12:47 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: >>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:58:43AM -0700, Tobias Grosser wrote: >>> ... >>>> Does attached patch work for you? >>>> >>>> Tobi >>>> >>> >>> Tobi,

On 04/30/2013 04:13 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi all, [...] > How could I find out where the time is spent on between two adjacent Polly passes? Can anyone give me some advice? Hi Star Tan, I propose to do the performance analysis using the 'opt' tool and optimizing LLVM-IR, instead of running it from within clang. For the 'opt' tool there are two commands that should help

On 10/21/2012 12:47 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:58:43AM -0700, Tobias Grosser wrote: > ... >> Does attached patch work for you? >> >> Tobi >> > > Tobi, > Yes, with this patch current llvm/polly svn builds and runs 'make polly-test' > without issues in finding LLVMPolly.so. Thanks for fixing this so quickly. Thanks for

Hello Tobi, I am interested in Polly project. Polly seems to be a very promising tool to find out program parallelization based on LLVM infrastructure. However, I find that Polly analysis and optimization can consume significant compiling time, so I propose a GSoC project to reduce Polly compiling time and I hope my work can make the Polly tool more applicable for all LLVM users. I have done