similar to: [LLVMdev] [Polly]GSoC Proposal: Reducing LLVM-Polly Compiling overhead

On 03/17/2013 11:54 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hello Tobi, > > I am interested in Polly project. Polly seems to be a very promising tool to find out program parallelization based on LLVM infrastructure. However, I find that Polly analysis and optimization can consume significant compiling time, so I propose a GSoC project to reduce Polly compiling time and I hope my work can make the Polly

Dear Tobias Grosser, Thank you so much for your kind reply. Your advice is very helpful and inspiring. At 2013-03-18 20:40:50,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 03/17/2013 11:54 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> Hello Tobi, >> >> I am interested in Polly project. Polly seems to be a very promising tool to find out program parallelization based on LLVM

Dear Tobias Grosser, Today I have rebuilt the LLVM-Polly in Release mode. The configuration of my own testing machine is: Intel Pentium Dual CPU T2390(1.86GHz) with 2GB DDR2 memory. I evaluated the Polly using PolyBench and Mediabench. It takes too long time to evaluate the whole LLVM-testsuite, so I just choose the Mediabench from LLVM-testsuite. The preliminary results of Polly compiling

On 03/19/2013 11:02 AM, Star Tan wrote: > > Dear Tobias Grosser, > > Today I have rebuilt the LLVM-Polly in Release mode. The configuration of my own testing machine is: Intel Pentium Dual CPU T2390(1.86GHz) with 2GB DDR2 memory. > I evaluated the Polly using PolyBench and Mediabench. It takes too long time to evaluate the whole LLVM-testsuite, so I just choose the Mediabench from

On 04/26/2013 05:08 AM, tanmx_star wrote: > Hi all, Hi, thanks for the update and sorry for the delay in reviewing. I just had a look at your proposal. > I have updated my GSoS proposal: "FastPolly: Reducing LLVM-Polly Compiling overhead" (https://gist.github.com/tanstar/5441808). I think the pass ordering problem you discussed early can be also investigated in this project!

Hi all, I have updated my GSoS proposal: "FastPolly: Reducing LLVM-Polly Compiling overhead" (https://gist.github.com/tanstar/5441808). I think the pass ordering problem you discussed early can be also investigated in this project! Is there any comment or advice about my proposal? I appreciate all your help and advice. Thanks, Star Tan Proposal:

On 05/03/2013 11:39 AM, Star Tan wrote: > Dear Tobias, > > > Thank you very much for your very helpful advice. > > > Yes, -debug-pass and -time-passes are two very useful and powerful > options when evaluating the compile-time of each compiler pass. They > are exactly what I need! With these options, I can step into details > of the compile-time overhead of each pass.

Dear Tobias, Thank you very much for your very helpful advice. Yes, -debug-pass and -time-passes are two very useful and powerful options when evaluating the compile-time of each compiler pass. They are exactly what I need! With these options, I can step into details of the compile-time overhead of each pass. I have finished some preliminary testing based on two randomly selected files from

On 04/30/2013 04:13 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi all, [...] > How could I find out where the time is spent on between two adjacent Polly passes? Can anyone give me some advice? Hi Star Tan, I propose to do the performance analysis using the 'opt' tool and optimizing LLVM-IR, instead of running it from within clang. For the 'opt' tool there are two commands that should help

At 2013-09-09 13:07:07,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 09/09/2013 05:18 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> >> At 2013-09-09 05:52:35,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> >>> On 09/08/2013 08:03 PM, Star Tan wrote: >>> Also, I wonder if your runs include the dependence analysis. If this is >>> the

Hello all, I have evaluated the compile-time and execution-time performance of Polly canonicalization passes. Details can be referred to http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity. There are four runs: pollyBasic (run 45): clang -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang LLVMPolly.so pollyNoGenSCEV (run 44): clang -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang LLVMPolly.so -mllvm -polly -mllvm -polly-codegen-scev

At 2013-09-02 17:05:52,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 09/01/2013 08:02 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> >> It seems that Polly's code generation can leads to high compile-time overhead, especially for PolyBench applications such as 2mm, 3mm, gemm, syrk, etc. Some basic evaluation and analysis for Polly's code generation

Hi all, It seems that Polly's code generation can leads to high compile-time overhead, especially for PolyBench applications such as 2mm, 3mm, gemm, syrk, etc. Some basic evaluation and analysis for Polly's code generation can be referred to http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16898. Currently, we can choose to run -polly-code-generator=cloog or -polly-code-generator=isl for code

On 10/07/2011 03:43 PM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: > 2011/10/7 Marcello Maggioni<hayarms at gmail.com>: >> Hi, >> >> for example this loop: >> >> #include<stdio.h> >> >> int main() >> { >> int A[1024]; >> int j, k=10; >> for (j = 1; j< 1024; j++) >> A[j] =

I add also the output of these commands: [hades at artemis examples]$ ./compile_ex.sh super_simple_loop Printing analysis 'Polly - Detect Scops in functions' for function 'main': [hades at artemis examples]$ modifying it in : #include <stdio.h> int main() { int A[1024]; int j, k=10; for (j = 0; j < 1024; j++) A[j] = k;

Hello all, I have done some basic experiments about Polly canonicalization passes and I found the SCEV canonicalization has significant impact on both compile-time and execution-time performance. Detailed results for SCEV and default canonicalization can be viewed on: http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/32 (or 33, 34) *pNoGen with SCEV canonicalization (run 32): -O3 -Xclang -load

On 09/01/2013 08:02 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi all, > > > It seems that Polly's code generation can leads to high compile-time overhead, especially for PolyBench applications such as 2mm, 3mm, gemm, syrk, etc. Some basic evaluation and analysis for Polly's code generation can be referred to http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16898. > > > Currently, we can choose to

At 2013-08-12 01:18:30,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 08/10/2013 06:59 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I have evaluated Polly's performance on LLVM test-suite with latest LLVM (r188054) and Polly (r187981).  Results can be viewed on: http://188.40.87.11:8000. > >Hi Star Tan, > >thanks for the update. >

On 09/08/2013 11:46 AM, Star Tan wrote: > At 2013-09-02 17:05:52,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > >> On 09/01/2013 08:02 PM, Star Tan wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> >>> It seems that Polly's code generation can leads to high compile-time overhead, especially for PolyBench applications such as 2mm, 3mm, gemm, syrk, etc.

Hi all, I have evaluated Polly's performance on LLVM test-suite with latest LLVM (r188054) and Polly (r187981).  Results can be viewed on: http://188.40.87.11:8000. There are mainly five new tests and each test is run with 10 samples: clang (run id = 27):  clang -O3 pollyBasic (run id = 28):  clang -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so pollyNoGen (run id = 29):  pollycc -O3 -mllvm -polly-optimizer=none