similar to: [LLVMdev] Code ownership proposal

I would like to nominate Nadav Rotem for the x86 backend. Michael On Nov 15, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 15, 2012, at 7:45 AM, "Du Toit, Stefanus" <stefanus.du.toit at intel.com> wrote: > >> I'd like to propose that Michael Liao become the code owner for the x86 backend. >> >> Michael has been

On Nov 15, 2012, at 7:45 AM, "Du Toit, Stefanus" <stefanus.du.toit at intel.com> wrote: > I'd like to propose that Michael Liao become the code owner for the x86 backend. > > Michael has been a very frequent contributor to the x86 backend for the last few months, and is working on the x86 backend full-time. > > Note that Michael is out of the office until Nov

We're having the first LLVM Social for those in or nearby the Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge area of Ontario! WHERE: Huether Hotel Barley Works in Uptown Waterloo [1] WHEN: Thursday, August 27, 7:00 PM I've reserved an area of the bar for the event under "LLVM Social". If you need any help, call me at 519-496-4224. Thanks to everyone who participated in the Doodle poll. We

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Gottesman" <mgottesman at apple.com> > To: "Chris Lattner" <clattner at apple.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:59:18 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Code ownership proposal > > I would like to nominate Nadav Rotem for the x86 backend. Michael has indeed been

Hi Nicolas, On 2-Apr-09, at 6:04 PM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Thanks for verifying this. Could you patch this or should I open a > new bug report and find a generic solution first? I don't have write access so the best I could do would be to submit a patch, and I'm crazy busy at the moment. I actually think the check I described below is fine and would fix this bug (but

Hi Stefanus, Thanks for verifying this. Could you patch this or should I open a new bug report and find a generic solution first? Cheers, Nicolas From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Stefanus Du Toit Sent: woensdag 1 april 2009 18:59 To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Shuffle combine On 1-Apr-09, at 12:42

On 1-Apr-09, at 12:42 PM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi Stefanus, > > Thanks for the info. I still think it’s a bug though. Take for > example a case where the vectors each have four elements. The values > in Mask[] can range from 0 to 7, while HLSMask only has 4 elements. > So LHSMask[Mask[i]] can go out of bounds, no? Good point! One easy way to fix this would be to use:

Hi Stefanus, Thanks for the info. I still think it's a bug though. Take for example a case where the vectors each have four elements. The values in Mask[] can range from 0 to 7, while HLSMask only has 4 elements. So LHSMask[Mask[i]] can go out of bounds, no? Cheers, Nicolas From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Stefanus Du

The llvm-dev archives (and other llvm/clang mailing list archives) on the web don't seem to have any new messages since some time Monday night. Stefanus -- Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> RapidMind Inc. phone: +1 519 885 5455 x116 -- fax: +1 519 885 1463

Stefanus Du Toit wrote: > The llvm-dev archives (and other llvm/clang mailing list archives) on > the web don't seem to have any new messages since some time Monday > night. > It seems to be working for me. Does it work for you now? -- John T. > Stefanus > > -- > Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> > RapidMind Inc. > phone: +1

On 21-Jul-08, at 7:33 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Stefanus Du Toit > <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> wrote: >> 1) Vector shl, lshr, ashr >> > I have a rough draft of a patch for this that works reasonably well > for simple cases... I don't think I really have the time to finish it > properly, but I'll clean it up a bit and

For those curious about uses of LLVM, we just officially announced our adoption of LLVM in our products: http://www.rapidmind.com/News-Nov10-08-LLVM-OpenCL.php Thanks for all the support so far on here, we look forward to continuing to work with LLVM! -- Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> RapidMind Inc. phone: +1 519 885 5455 x116 -- fax: +1 519 885 1463

On Nov 10, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Stefanus Du Toit wrote: > For those curious about uses of LLVM, we just officially announced our > adoption of LLVM in our products: > > http://www.rapidmind.com/News-Nov10-08-LLVM-OpenCL.php I'm thrilled to read an official announcement of that! Do you use LLVM only for static code generation or are you also doing any late (e.g.,

On 30-Jan-09, at 6:14 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Stefanus Du Toit > <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> wrote: >> The computation of %base then becomes loop-invariant and can be >> lifted out. >> >> What's the best way to add this optimization to LLVM? > > Probably the best place is LICM itself... only loop

We're having the first LLVM Social for those in or nearby the Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge area of Ontario! This is a great opportunity to meet other LLVM folks face to face. The social will be during the last week of August, "somewhere with beer" in Uptown Waterloo or Downtown Kitchener. If you'd like to attend, please indicate your preferred day here:

As a reminder, we're holding the first ever Waterloo Region LLVM Social tomorrow night. WHERE: Huether Hotel Barley Works in Uptown Waterloo [1] WHEN: Thursday, August 29, 7:00 PM I've reserved an area of the bar for the event under "LLVM Social". If you need any help, call me at 519-496-4224. See you tomorrow! Stefanus -- Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.du.toit at

Hello, We've run across the following missed optimization: in the attached loop (addind.c/addind-opt.ll) there's a lookup into an array (V) using an indirect index (coming from another array, WI[k]) offset by a loop- invariant base (l). The full addressing expression can be reassociated so that we add the offset l to V's base first, and then add the indirect part. This makes

Hi Stefanus, I'm not if using MMX instructions when doing operations on 64-bit vectors is so terrible? With x86-64 you have double the registers, but it comes at the cost of longer instruction encodings. So there's probably no benefit using SSE. Or am I missing something? Cheers, Nicolas -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> wrote: > The computation of %base then becomes loop-invariant and can be lifted out. > > What's the best way to add this optimization to LLVM? Probably the best place is LICM itself... only loop transformations are aware whether something is loop-invariant. Although, I'm not completely

Hi Nicolas, On 1-May-09, at 6:32 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > I’ve located a regression that causes my project to crash. It’s in > revision 67979, where PointerIntPair is changed from storing the > integer in the upper bits instead of the lower bits. My project is > an experimental JIT-compiler in Windows. We're looking into a similar bug right now. We see the problem