similar to: [LLVMdev] passing arguments to a pass

The PTX back-end is robust (it's based on the sources used by nvcc), but I'm not sure about the OpenMP representation in LLVM IR. I believe the OpenMP constructs are already lowered into libgomp calls before leaving DragonEgg. It's been awhile since I've loooked at it though. If you use the PTX back-end and have any issues, please don't hesitate to post to the list and cc:

Hi , I doubt LLVM has the infrastructure in place to do so ,One way to accomplish this by implementing decompiler to convert library functions to LLVM IR and run the LLVM analyze pass over converted LLVM IR ,Then revert back from LLVM IR to your library format. Thanks ~Umesh On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:47 PM, apala guha <aguha at uchicago.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > Is there any

Hi, Is there any way to analyze library functions using LLVM, in the same manner as source code functions? Thanks. -Apala

Hi, Is it possible to translate an OpenMP program to CUDA using LLVM? I read that dragonegg has a OpenMP front-end and LLVM has a PTX back-end. I don't know how mature these tools are. Please let me know. Thanks. -Apala Postdoctoral Scholar Department of Computer Science, University of Chicago Computation Institute, Argonne National Laboratory http://sites.google.com/site/apalaguha/home/

Hi, Is there a way to count branch frequencies using LLVM infrastructure? Thanks. -Apala Postdoctoral Scholar Department of Computer Science, University of Chicago Computation Institute, Argonne National Laboratory http://sites.google.com/site/apalaguha/home/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, I am trying to link archives built by llvm-ar with other bitcode files, using llvm-link. But llvm-link seems unable to read files produced by llvm-ar. Also, clang seems unable to read files produced by llvm-ar. Am I doing something wrong or is this the expected behavior? Is there any work-around? Thanks. -Apala

Another issue is with ProfileInfo::getExecutionCount(Function* F). Looking at the source code and results, I am seeing that it always returns the execution count of the entry basic block of the function. If the entry basic block is part of a loop, its execution count does not match the function invocation count. Is my assumption wrong, that ProfileInfo::getExecutionCount(Function* F) is

On Dec 5, 2012, at 8:15 PM, apala guha <aguha at uchicago.edu> wrote: > I am trying to link archives built by llvm-ar with other bitcode files, using llvm-link. But llvm-link seems unable to read files produced by llvm-ar. Also, clang seems unable to read files produced by llvm-ar. Am I doing something wrong or is this the expected behavior? Is there any work-around? You're not

Thanks everyone for the replies. After some experimentation, I found that the order in which the passes are specified matters: opt -O3 -profile-loader matmult.bc -o matmult.opt.bc (works) opt -profile-loader -O3 matmult.bc -o matmult.opt.bc (does not work) Also, I am able to avoid the inconsistency warning only for optimization levels -O3 and -O2. I get that warning when using -O1 and

Hi, Ivan: Sorry for deviating the topic a bit. As I told you before I'm a LLVM newbie, I cannot give you conclusive answer if the proposed interface is ok or not. My personal opinion on these two interface is summarized bellow: - hasZeroCostLoop() pro: it is clearly state the HW support. con: Having zero cost loop doesn't imply the benefit HW loop could achieve.

Hi, Ivan: My $0.02. hasZeroCostLooping() disabling unrolling dose not seem to be appropriate for other architectures, at least the one I worked before. You mentioned: >Currently, we cannot detect them because the loop unroller is >unrolling them before entering into the codegen. Looking at its implementation, >it. Could you please articulate why CG fail to recognize it?

I am the designer for open64 hwloop structure, but I am not a student. Hope the following helps: To transform a loop into hwloop, we need the help from optimizer. For example, while(k3>=10){ sum+=k1; k3 --; } into the form: zdl_loop(k3-9) { sum+=k1; } So, we introduce a new ZDLBR whirl(open64 optimizer intermediate) operator, which represents the loop in whirl as:

Hi Apala, Dibyendu is correct that this is likely due to pass order, but things get a bit complicated with -O[1-9] or -std-compile-opts as they insert early passes *before* the profiling code. I recommend that you use identical optimizations to insert instrumentation and to load the profiling data. E.g.: opt -insert-edge-profiling -O3 foo.bc -o foo.2.bc opt -profile-loader -O3 foo.bc

Can we not run the -insert-edge-profiling and -profile-loader passes at the beginning of the opt? Orthogonal point is, is it worth doing any optimizations when -insert-edge-profiling is specified on command line? -Prashantha -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Alastair Murray Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Thanks Alastair. Is it possible to associate the branch frequency counts with the basic blocks in the intermediate representation? (e.g. Can I access basic block frequencies in runOnFunction()?) Also, I was able to produce a 'llvmprof.out' file. What is the format of this file? How can I parse it? Thanks. -Apala > > > On 09/07/2012 01:25 PM, Alastair Murray wrote: >

Is it OK to remove metadata in an optimization pass? The context is patch http://reviews.llvm.org/D4571 which removes loop unrolling hint metadata after using it to avoid unrolling more than the hint suggests. This is a potential problem because loop unrolling can be run more than once. Example: a loop annotated with "#pragma clang loop unroll_count(2)" which adds hint metadata to the

Hi Shuxin, Eli, On 22/11/2012 03:19, Shuxin Yang wrote: > Hi, Ivan: > > My $0.02. hasZeroCostLooping() disabling unrolling dose not seem > to be > appropriate for other architectures, at least the one I worked before. I appreciate your feed-back. Could you give an example where building a hw loop is not appropriate for your target? > > You mentioned: >

I tried getting profile data from LLVM 3.1, using the method mentioned below. I tried it out on a simple matrix multiplication program. However, I noticed the following problems: 1. There is a warning message: "WARNING: profile information is inconsistent with the current program!" 2. The basic block counts (obtained from ProfileInfo::getExecutionCount(const BasicBlock*)) are

On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 20:24 +0100, Tobias Grosser wrote: > On 11/08/2011 03:36 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 12:12 +0100, Tobias Grosser wrote: > >> On 11/08/2011 11:45 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: > >>> I've attached the latest version of my autovectorization patch. > >>> > >>> Working through the test suite has proved to be a

<div class="socmaildefaultfont" dir="ltr" style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt" ><div dir="ltr" ><font face="AppleSystemUIFont" size="3" >LoopUnrollAndJamPass is currently a loop pass. It is added in a LPM with only itself.</font><br><font face="AppleSystemUIFont"