similar to: [LLVMdev] CostModelAnalysis for 3.0 release

Hi Ryan, I think that it would be difficult to back port the CostModel back to LLVM3.0 because it uses the new TargetTransformInfo analysis. I also wanted to mention that only _lowering_ passes (target-specific optimization passes) may use TTI and the cost model. Higher-level canonicalization passes should not use it. Thanks, Nadav On Feb 6, 2013, at 1:26 AM, ryan <stdstack at

Thanks a lot for the reply, Nadav! I see that using the cost model in target-independent analysis is not good. But I really like the idea of having instruction cost estimation available. Also the reason I can't directly move to 3.2 code base is that it fails to compile(produce bc files) big project like MySQL, where 3.0 has no problem. Right now, I'm trying to hard code a particular

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 7, 2013, at 3:17 PM, ryan <stdstack at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks a lot for the reply, Nadav! > > I see that using the cost model in target-independent analysis is not > good. But I really like the idea of having instruction > > cost estimation available. Also the

On Feb 7, 2013, at 3:17 PM, ryan <stdstack at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks a lot for the reply, Nadav! > I see that using the cost model in target-independent analysis is not good. But I really like the idea of having instruction > cost estimation available. Also the reason I can't directly move to 3.2 code base is that it fails to compile(produce bc files) big > project

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 04:07:38PM -0800, ryan wrote: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 7, 2013, at 3:17 PM, ryan <stdstack at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Thanks a lot for the reply, Nadav! > > > I see that using the cost model in target-independent analysis is not > > good. But I

There is CostModel.cpp since LLVM3, I am wondering if anyone can give me an concrete example on how to use this pass to estimate cycles used in a given IR file. Thank you very much. Don

Hi, I'm looking for APIs that compute instruction costs, and noticed several of them. 1. A series of APIs of TargetTransformInfo that compute the cost of instructions of a particular type (e.g. getArithmeticInstrCost and getShuffleCost) 2. TargetTransformInfo::getOperationCost 3. CostModel::getInstructionCost::getInstructionCost in lib/Analysis/CostModel.cpp Only the first one is used

CostModule::getInstructionCost also consults TTI ( http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/CostModel_8cpp_source.html#l00380). No? Jingyue On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com> wrote: > >> I'm looking for APIs that compute instruction costs, and noticed

Hi, I'm trying to implement the TTI hooks for AMDGPU to avoid unrolling loops for operations with huge expansions (i.e. integer division). The values that are ultimately reported by opt -cost-model -analyze (the actual cost model tests) seem to not matter for this. The huge cost I've assigned division doesn't prevent the loop from being unrolled, because it isn't actually

Hello Mehdi Amini, Sorry for slow progress this week but it was due to interesting mistake of mine. I had build llvm with ipra enable by default and that build files were on my path ! Due to that next time I tried to build llvm it was terribly slow (almost 1 hour for 10% build ). I spend to much time on fixing this by playing around with environment variables, cmake options etc. But I think this

Hi all, I have a query regarding Cost Table for AVX2 in TargetTransformInfo. The table consist of entries for shift and div operations only. There are no entries for ADD, SUB and MUL for AVX2 cost table. Those entries are present in Cost Table for AVX. The reason for query is - when my sub target feature is AVX2, in SLP Vectorization, while calculating scalar cost of ADD, it doesn't see

On Dec 1, 2012, at 11:49 PM, "Kuperstein, Michael M" <michael.m.kuperstein at intel.com> wrote: > I definitely support this. > > In fact we were about to send a very similar proposal. The main difference I can see between this proposal and ours was that we named the attribute "noduplicate". > I graciously defer to James on the bikeshade color issue. Yes,

Thanks Nadav for the info. It clears my query :) Yes its an integer ADD, and since AVX2 supports 256 bits integer arithmetic, so its cost is less than AVX1. One query though - shouldn't then the cost of integer ADD/SUB/MUL (which would be 1) be explicitly specified in AVX2 cost table? Because right now this entry is missing and cost of these operations are taken from BaseTTI (which is

On Dec 2, 2012, at 10:11 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > 3) Please change random parts of the compiler to use CodeMetrics, instead of scattering random checks for this attribute throughout the code. Anything duplicating code and not using CodeMetrics is just plain incorrect. One problem that we may run into when using CodeMetrics is compile time. In many cases we

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 4, 2016, at 7:56 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello Mehdi Amini, > > > > Sorry for slow progress this week but it was due to interesting mistake > of mine. I had build llvm with ipra enable by default and that build files >

Sorry if double posted... might have sent this to old mailing list address... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stephen Thomas <stephen.warner.thomas at gmail.com> Date: Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:39 AM Subject: How to use CostModel? To: LLVM Dev <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Hi, I'm trying to use the built-in CostModel class to estimate the number of machine instructions

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 4, 2016, at 8:32 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> > On Jun 4, 2016, at 7:56 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> >> wrote:

Hi, Thanks for the pointers. My patch now calls the attribute "noduplicate", and updates CodeMetrics to have another field: bool notDuplicatable; Which semantically is "containsIndirectBr || containsNoDuplicateInst". I didn't repurpose containsIndirectBr because I felt what I'm looking for is sufficiently different (indirectbr inhibits inlining, whereas noduplicate

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 2, 2012, at 10:11 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > 3) Please change random parts of the compiler to use CodeMetrics, instead > of scattering random checks for this attribute throughout the code. > Anything duplicating code and not using CodeMetrics is just plain

Hi all + llvm-commits, After the discussion below, please find attached my patch to add a new "noduplicate" function attribute. I've modified CodeMetrics and LoopInfo, which covers most cases, but JumpThreading and InlineCost don't use CodeMetrics yet, so they required changing manually. Cheers, James On Mon, 2012-12-03 at 23:46 +0000, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Dec 3,