Displaying 20 results from an estimated 7000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Rotated loop identification"
2013 Feb 06
0
[LLVMdev] Rotated loop identification
On Feb 4, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Michele Scandale <michele.scandale at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I'm working on a late IR target dependent optimization on loops. A part of this
> optimization requires to derive "by hand" the trip-count expression of a given
> loop. In order to handle correctly these cases I need to check if the loop has
> an entry guard
2013 Feb 07
2
[LLVMdev] Rotated loop identification
Thanks for your reply.
Maybe it wasn't so clear, but the optimization I'm writing is target-dependent
and so it's declared inside the target backend and is run after the independent
optimizer. So I cannot run my pass just after LoopRotate and before InstCombine.
I can still use ScalarEvolution, but the instruction combiner can in some cases
simplify the entry guard condition.
A small
2013 Feb 07
0
[LLVMdev] Rotated loop identification
On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:40 AM, Michele Scandale <michele.scandale at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> Maybe it wasn't so clear, but the optimization I'm writing is target-dependent
> and so it's declared inside the target backend and is run after the independent
> optimizer. So I cannot run my pass just after LoopRotate and before InstCombine.
> I
2013 Feb 07
3
[LLVMdev] Rotated loop identification
> Thanks for the details. Please add them to a bug report.
I will do this.
> InstCombine is certainly interfering with our ability to analyze the loop. I think the problem is that ScalarEvolution cannot reason about signed division. This is a general problem independent of your target. At the moment I'm not sure if we can teach ScalarEvolution to reason about this, or if we can defer
2013 Feb 08
0
[LLVMdev] Rotated loop identification
On Feb 7, 2013, at 10:53 AM, Michele Scandale <michele.scandale at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for the details. Please add them to a bug report.
>
> I will do this.
Thanks.
>> InstCombine is certainly interfering with our ability to analyze the loop. I think the problem is that ScalarEvolution cannot reason about signed division. This is a general problem independent of
2013 Feb 08
1
[LLVMdev] Rotated loop identification
On 02/08/2013 06:56 AM, Andrew Trick wrote:
> There's been talk of adding metata do the branch that terminates the loop latch block. What llvm calls the "latch" is just a unique backward branch to the loop header and not necessarilly even a loop exit.
>
> I'm not sure how you would interpret that metadata, since the branch exit may be rewritten (just like the loop
2013 Feb 08
3
[LLVMdev] Rotated loop identification
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Trick" <atrick at apple.com>
> To: "Michele Scandale" <michele.scandale at gmail.com>
> Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013 11:56:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Rotated loop identification
>
>
> On Feb 7, 2013, at 10:53 AM,
2013 Feb 22
2
[LLVMdev] llvm.meta (was Rotated loop identification)
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Trick" <atrick at apple.com>
> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Michele Scandale" <michele.scandale at gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 8, 2013 1:52:55 PM
> Subject: llvm.meta (was Rotated loop
2013 Feb 08
0
[LLVMdev] llvm.meta (was Rotated loop identification)
On Feb 7, 2013, at 10:58 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>> As long as this is brainstorming time, I actually like the idea of an
>> llvm.invariant intrinsic that the optimizers know to ignore. I like
>> it for other purposes, but would happen to work for you as a
>> temporary workaround. It could take one or two IR values (as
>> metadata operands)
2013 Mar 12
0
[LLVMdev] llvm.meta (was Rotated loop identification)
On Feb 22, 2013, at 6:28 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Andrew Trick" <atrick at apple.com>
>> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
>> Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Michele Scandale" <michele.scandale at gmail.com>
>>
2013 Oct 01
3
[LLVMdev] ScalarEvolution::createNodeForPHI
Hello to everybody,
I'm working on some improvements on trip count computation with ScalarEvolution
analysis.
Considering the following test
;----------------------------------------------------------------------------;
define void @foo(i32 %a, i32 %b, i32 %s) #0 {
entry:
%cmp = icmp sgt i32 %s, 0
%cmp15 = icmp sgt i32 %a, %b
%or.cond = and i1 %cmp, %cmp15
br i1 %or.cond, label
2013 Oct 02
0
[LLVMdev] ScalarEvolution::createNodeForPHI
On Oct 1, 2013, at 6:45 AM, Michele Scandale <michele.scandale at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello to everybody,
>
> I'm working on some improvements on trip count computation with ScalarEvolution
> analysis.
> Considering the following test
>
> ;----------------------------------------------------------------------------;
> define void @foo(i32 %a, i32 %b, i32 %s) #0
2013 Jul 03
2
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Assert in Scope construction
Should have changed the subject line...
---
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by
The Linux Foundation
> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
> On Behalf Of Sergei Larin
> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 12:29 PM
> To: 'Tobias Grosser'
> Cc: 'llvmdev'
2013 Aug 20
3
[LLVMdev] llvm.meta (was Rotated loop identification)
----- Original Message -----
>
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 6:28 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Andrew Trick" <atrick at apple.com>
> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> >> Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>,
2013 Aug 20
0
[LLVMdev] llvm.meta (was Rotated loop identification)
On Aug 19, 2013, at 8:06 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 6:28 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Andrew Trick" <atrick at apple.com>
>>>> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
2013 Jul 02
0
[LLVMdev] [LNT] Question about results reliability in LNT infrustructure
On 07/01/2013 09:41 AM, Renato Golin wrote:
> On 1 July 2013 02:02, Chris Matthews <chris.matthews at apple.com> wrote:
>
>> One thing that LNT is doing to help “smooth” the results for you is by
>> presenting the min of the data at a particular revision, which (hopefully)
>> is approximating the actual runtime without noise.
>>
>
> That's an
2013 Aug 16
2
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Analysis of extra compile-time overhead for simple nested loops
Hi Sebpop,
Thanks for your explanation.
I noticed that Polly would finally run the SROA pass to transform these load/store instructions into scalar operations. Is it possible to run such a pass before polly-dependence analysis?
Star Tan
At 2013-08-15 21:12:53,"Sebastian Pop" <sebpop at gmail.com> wrote:
>Codeprepare and independent blocks are introducing these loads and
2013 Jul 01
2
[LLVMdev] [LNT] Question about results reliability in LNT infrustructure
On 1 July 2013 02:02, Chris Matthews <chris.matthews at apple.com> wrote:
> One thing that LNT is doing to help “smooth” the results for you is by
> presenting the min of the data at a particular revision, which (hopefully)
> is approximating the actual runtime without noise.
>
That's an interesting idea, as you said, if you run multiple times on every
revision.
On ARM,
2013 Jul 05
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Assert in Scope construction
Hi Sergei,
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> Should have changed the subject line...
>
> ---
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted
> by
> The Linux Foundation
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at
2013 Aug 12
2
[LLVMdev] Address space extension
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Michele Scandale <
michele.scandale at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/12/2013 02:02 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Michele Scandale <
> michele.scandale at gmail.com
> > <mailto:michele.scandale at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > On 08/12/2013 12:44 AM, Michele Scandale wrote:
> >