Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] [Polly] Summary of some expensive compiler passes, especially PollyDependence"
2013 Aug 08
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Summary of some expensive compiler passes, especially PollyDependence
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:
> https://gist.github.com/tanstar/581bcea1e4e03498f935/raw/f6a4ec4e8565f7a7bbdb924cd59fcf145caac039/Polly-top10
>
>
> Based on the comparison between "clang -O3" and "polly -O3"
2013 Aug 09
2
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Summary of some expensive compiler passes, especially PollyDependence
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:
>>
2013 Aug 09
2
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Summary of some expensive compiler passes, especially PollyDependence
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,
>>>>
>>>>
2013 Aug 09
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Summary of some expensive compiler passes, especially PollyDependence
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:
>>>
2013 Aug 09
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Summary of some expensive compiler passes, especially PollyDependence
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,
>>>>>
2013 Jul 26
6
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Analysis of the expensive compile-time overhead of Polly Dependence pass
Hi Sebastian,
Recently, I found the "Polly - Calculate dependences" pass would lead to significant compile-time overhead when compiling some loop-intensive source code. Tobias told me you found similar problem as follows:
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14240
My evaluation shows that "Polly - Calculate dependences" pass consumes 96.4% of total compile-time overhead
2013 Aug 16
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Analysis of extra compile-time overhead for simple nested loops
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
2013 Aug 16
2
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Analysis of extra compile-time overhead for simple nested loops
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
2013 Aug 17
2
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Analysis of extra compile-time overhead for simple nested loops
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
> x[0] +=
>
It is interesting that Polly would run much faster if we change the
2013 Jul 28
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Analysis of the expensive compile-time overhead of Polly Dependence pass
On 07/28/2013 06:52 AM, Star Tan wrote:
> Hi Tobias,
>
> I tried to investigated the problem related to ScopInfo, but I need your
> help on handling some problems about ISL and SCEV.
I copied the list as the discussion may be helpful for others.
@Sven, no need to read all. Just search for your name.
[..]
>>The interesting observation is, that Polly introduces three parameters
2016 Aug 03
3
Extracting the names of the variables that creates loop-carried dependencies
Hi,
I would like to know if it is possible to extract the source level names
of variables that create loop-carried dependencies.
For example, for the following code:
for (int i = 0; i < A_ROW; i++)
{
for (int j = 1; j < B_COL; j++)
{
a_matrix[i][j] = a_matrix[i][j - 1];
}
}
I get the following AST:
#pragma omp parallel for
2013 Jan 02
0
[LLVMdev] [DragonEgg] [Polly] Should we expect DragonEgg to produce identical LLVM IR for identical GIMPLE?
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:
2013 Jul 29
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Analysis of the expensive compile-time overhead of Polly Dependence pass
On 07/29/2013 09:15 AM, Sven Verdoolaege wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 07:37:14AM -0700, Tobias Grosser wrote:
>> On 07/29/2013 03:18 AM, Sven Verdoolaege wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 04:42:25PM -0700, Tobias Grosser wrote:
>>>> Sven: In terms of making the behaviour of isl easier to understand,
>>>> it may make sense to fail/assert in case
2013 Aug 11
2
[LLVMdev] [FastPolly]: Update of Polly's performance on LLVM test-suite
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
2013 Jan 02
2
[LLVMdev] [DragonEgg] [Polly] Should we expect DragonEgg to produce identical LLVM IR for identical GIMPLE?
On 01/01/2013 02:45 PM, Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
>>
>> In our compiler we use a modified version LLVM Polly, which is very
>> sensitive to
>> proper code generation. Among the number of limitations, the loop region
>> (enclosed by phi node on induction variable and branch) is required to
>> be free
>> of additional memory-dependent
2013 Aug 11
0
[LLVMdev] [FastPolly]: Update of Polly's performance on LLVM test-suite
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.
> There are mainly five new tests and each test is run with 10 samples:
> clang (run id = 27): clang -O3
> pollyBasic (run id =
2016 Aug 05
0
Extracting the names of the variables that creates loop-carried dependencies
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your answer. Checking the indexes looks as an another
straightforward approach to identify the actual loop-carried dependencies.
What is not clear to me still is how it looks like the code to extract the
ScopArrayInfo pointer from the user part.
Miguel
On 08/05/2016 02:32 PM, Michael Kruse wrote:
> I just realized this is a crossposting llvm-dev/polly-dev. It has
2015 Sep 23
4
Find loops in LLVM bytecode
Hi,
I want to find simple loops in LLVM bytecode, and extract the basic
information of the loop.
For example:
for (i=0; i<1000; i++)
sum += i;
I want to extract the bound [0, 1000), the loop variable "i" and the
loop body (sum += i).
What should I do?
I read the LLVM API document, and find some useful classes like "Loop",
"LoopInfo".
But I do
2013 Jul 31
1
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Analysis of the expensive compile-time overhead of Polly Dependence pass
Hi Tobias and Sven,
Thanks for your discussion and suggestion.
@Sven: ISL actually allows users to have different identifiers with the same name. The problem that we have discussed is caused by incorrect usage of isl_space in Polly, so please do not worry about ISL library. You can skip the following information related to Polly implementation.
@Tobias and Polly developers:
I have attached
2013 Aug 12
1
[LLVMdev] [FastPolly]: Update of Polly's performance on LLVM test-suite
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.
>