similar to: [LLVMdev] [Polly] Parallelizing outer loop containing inner reduction loop

Hi Tobi, Thanks for looking into this! 2013/2/4 Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> > > In any case, you seemed to have in some way convinced Polly to accept this > code. Would you mind to share what you did? > Sure. Aliasing is simply ignored. Instead we have substituted pointers and sizes for arrays and a special pass that converts memory accesses from every scop statement

Oops, sorry for the message title, making it more descriptive now... 2013/2/3 Dmitry Mikushin <dmitry at kernelgen.org> > Dear all, > > Yesterday, from the customer's code I observed relatively simple case, > where Polly is unable to detect parallelizable outer loop. Consider two > versions of Fortran routine: > > 1) > > subroutine filter(H, szh, X, szx, Y,

Hi Dmitry, [FORTRAN code] > The difference between two versions is only in the way how inner > reduction loop is implemented. In first case it is explicit and in > second case - uses sum intrinsic, which is lowered to plain code by > DragonEgg. In first case Polly successfully detects parallel outer > loop, in second case - it can't. Thanks for the test

On 08/08/2013 07:45 PM, Star Tan wrote: > At 2013-08-09 10:20:46,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote:>On 08/08/2013 06:27 PM, Star Tan wrote: >>> At 2013-08-08 22:28:33,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >>>> On 08/08/2013 01:29 AM, Star Tan wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>>

Hi Duncan & Tobi, Thanks a lot for your interest, and for pointing out differences in GIMPLE I missed. Attached is simplified test case. Is it good? Tobi, regarding runtime alias analysis: in KernelGen we already do it along with runtime values substitution. For example: <------------------ __kernelgen_main_loop_17: compile started ---------------------> Integer args substituted:

At 2013-08-09 10:20:46,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote:>On 08/08/2013 06:27 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> At 2013-08-08 22:28:33,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >>> On 08/08/2013 01:29 AM, Star Tan wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>>

At 2013-08-17 23:22:32,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 08/17/2013 12:08 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> At 2013-08-16 22:32:30,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes, I have changed the original code to the form you suggested: >>>> for (i >>>> for (j >>>>

On 08/08/2013 06:27 PM, Star Tan wrote: > At 2013-08-08 22:28:33,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> On 08/08/2013 01:29 AM, Star Tan wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> >>> I have summarized the top 10 compiler passes for Polly when compiling LLVM test-ssuite. Results can be viewed on: >>>

At 2013-08-08 22:28:33,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 08/08/2013 01:29 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> >> I have summarized the top 10 compiler passes for Polly when compiling LLVM test-ssuite. Results can be viewed on: >>    

Hi, Here's another case, different in high-level, but similar in low-level. When Fortran allocatable array is defined in module, its actual dimensions are kept in internal structure. Loads originated from reading these dimensions confuse Polly on any use of this array. Attachments: 1) Sample Fortran source code (to be compiled with and without -DMODULE to see failing and working version,

At 2013-08-16 12:44:02,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >Hi, > >I tried to reproduce your findings, but could not do so. Sorry, I did not put all code in my previous email because the code seems a little too long and complicated. You can refer to the detailed C code and LLVM IR code on http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16843 There are four attachments

I was trying the new feature you introduce about printing out the graphs, so I updated my version of llvm/clang/polly synchronizing them to the last version, but I get this error launching clang (also , I recently switched to MacOS X for development): $ clang not_so_simple_loop.c -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang ${PATH_TO_POLLY_LIB}/LLVMPolly.dylib -mllvm -enable-polly-viewer -mllvm -enable-iv-rewrite

On 08/16/2013 02:42 AM, Star Tan wrote: > At 2013-08-16 12:44:02,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I tried to reproduce your findings, but could not do so. > > > Sorry, I did not put all code in my previous email because the code seems a little too long and complicated. > You can refer to the detailed C code and LLVM IR

Hi Tobias, I tried to invoke other passes and none of them are available, e.g.: ~/toolchain/install/llvm-3.8/bin/opt -load ~/toolchain/install/llvm-3.8/lib/libPolly.so -polly-cleanup opt: Unknown command line argument '-polly-cleanup'. Try: '/home/fwinter/toolchain/install/llvm-3.8/bin/opt -help' opt: Did you mean '-polly-tiling'? I am just shooting around hoping to

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017, at 20:49, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev wrote: > [tying to original thread] > > On 09/04/2017 01:37 PM, Adve, Vikram Sadanand via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hal, Tobias, et al. – > > > > I am strongly in favor of seeing a broader range of loop transformations, supported by strong dependence analysis, added to LLVM, and the Polly infrastructure seems to be by far

Hi, all I tried Polly installation on Ubuntu. On its building, it returned no errors. But when I run "make polly-test", it returns 11 unexpected failures as follows. ----------------------------------- ******************** Testing Time: 19.77s ******************** Failing Tests (11): Polly :: CodeGen/do_pluto_matmult.ll Polly :: CodeGen/loop_with_condition.ll Polly ::

Hi Tobias, thanks for the answer. I'll try to give a look to the code you pointed me to , and I'll try to make the modification myself. I'm new to LLVM and Polly, but the code of both seem clean and understandable, so I hope to be able to do it myself. In case I'll ask here for support :) Marcello 2011/10/1 Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es>: > On 10/01/2011 03:26

On 06/08/2011 01:17 AM, MORIYAMA Tomohiro wrote: > Hi, all > > I tried Polly installation on Ubuntu. > > On its building, it returned no errors. > But when I run "make polly-test", it returns 11 unexpected failures as > follows. > ----------------------------------- > ******************** > Testing Time: 19.77s > ******************** > Failing Tests

On 08/17/2013 12:08 AM, Star Tan wrote: > At 2013-08-16 22:32:30,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >>> >>> Yes, I have changed the original code to the form you suggested: >>> for (i >>> for (j >>> ... >>> x=1 >> >> Sorry, I meant >>

At 2013-08-01 23:29:14,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 07/31/2013 09:23 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> At 2013-07-31 22:50:57,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es >> <mailto:tobias at grosser.es>> wrote: >> >>>On 07/30/2013 10:03 AM, Star Tan wrote: >>>> Hi Tobias and all Polly developers,