similar to: [LLVMdev] Waterloo Region LLVM Social - date and location announced!

As a reminder, we're holding the first ever Waterloo Region LLVM Social tomorrow night. WHERE: Huether Hotel Barley Works in Uptown Waterloo [1] WHEN: Thursday, August 29, 7:00 PM I've reserved an area of the bar for the event under "LLVM Social". If you need any help, call me at 519-496-4224. See you tomorrow! Stefanus -- Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.du.toit at

We're having the first LLVM Social for those in or nearby the Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge area of Ontario! This is a great opportunity to meet other LLVM folks face to face. The social will be during the last week of August, "somewhere with beer" in Uptown Waterloo or Downtown Kitchener. If you'd like to attend, please indicate your preferred day here:

I'd like to propose that Michael Liao become the code owner for the x86 backend. Michael has been a very frequent contributor to the x86 backend for the last few months, and is working on the x86 backend full-time. Note that Michael is out of the office until Nov 29 with very limited email/internet access. Thanks, Stefanus -- Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.du.toit at intel.com> Intel

On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:51 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > Getting CMake up to the standard where it supports a superset of what autoconf supports is required for dropping autoconf Is there a list somewhere of what autoconf supports that CMake does not (and that people care about)? It could be that people simply don't know what's missing since, as you

Hi Nicolas, On 2-Apr-09, at 6:04 PM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Thanks for verifying this. Could you patch this or should I open a > new bug report and find a generic solution first? I don't have write access so the best I could do would be to submit a patch, and I'm crazy busy at the moment. I actually think the check I described below is fine and would fix this bug (but

Hi Stefanus, Thanks for verifying this. Could you patch this or should I open a new bug report and find a generic solution first? Cheers, Nicolas From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Stefanus Du Toit Sent: woensdag 1 april 2009 18:59 To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Shuffle combine On 1-Apr-09, at 12:42

On 1-Apr-09, at 12:42 PM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi Stefanus, > > Thanks for the info. I still think it’s a bug though. Take for > example a case where the vectors each have four elements. The values > in Mask[] can range from 0 to 7, while HLSMask only has 4 elements. > So LHSMask[Mask[i]] can go out of bounds, no? Good point! One easy way to fix this would be to use:

Hi Stefanus, Thanks for the info. I still think it's a bug though. Take for example a case where the vectors each have four elements. The values in Mask[] can range from 0 to 7, while HLSMask only has 4 elements. So LHSMask[Mask[i]] can go out of bounds, no? Cheers, Nicolas From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Stefanus Du

The llvm-dev archives (and other llvm/clang mailing list archives) on the web don't seem to have any new messages since some time Monday night. Stefanus -- Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> RapidMind Inc. phone: +1 519 885 5455 x116 -- fax: +1 519 885 1463

Stefanus Du Toit wrote: > The llvm-dev archives (and other llvm/clang mailing list archives) on > the web don't seem to have any new messages since some time Monday > night. > It seems to be working for me. Does it work for you now? -- John T. > Stefanus > > -- > Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> > RapidMind Inc. > phone: +1

Hi Stefanus, I'm not if using MMX instructions when doing operations on 64-bit vectors is so terrible? With x86-64 you have double the registers, but it comes at the cost of longer instruction encodings. So there's probably no benefit using SSE. Or am I missing something? Cheers, Nicolas -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at

On 21-Jul-08, at 7:33 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Stefanus Du Toit > <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> wrote: >> 1) Vector shl, lshr, ashr >> > I have a rough draft of a patch for this that works reasonably well > for simple cases... I don't think I really have the time to finish it > properly, but I'll clean it up a bit and

Hello, We've run across the following missed optimization: in the attached loop (addind.c/addind-opt.ll) there's a lookup into an array (V) using an indirect index (coming from another array, WI[k]) offset by a loop- invariant base (l). The full addressing expression can be reassociated so that we add the offset l to V's base first, and then add the indirect part. This makes

On Nov 10, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Stefanus Du Toit wrote: > For those curious about uses of LLVM, we just officially announced our > adoption of LLVM in our products: > > http://www.rapidmind.com/News-Nov10-08-LLVM-OpenCL.php I'm thrilled to read an official announcement of that! Do you use LLVM only for static code generation or are you also doing any late (e.g.,

Hi Nicolas, On 1-Apr-09, at 7:34 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > I’m having some trouble understanding the following lines in > InstructionCombining.cpp, which possibly contain a bug: > > if (Mask[i] >= 2*e) > NewMask.push_back(2*e); > else > NewMask.push_back(LHSMask[Mask[i]]); > > When Mask[i] is bigger than the size of LHSMask it reads out of > bounds

On 3 Mai, 18:56, Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.dut... at rapidmind.com> wrote: > On 1-May-09, at 8:35 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > > I still don't understand why this is a problem, but I decreased the > > default to 2 bits.  Please verify that this helps, > > I think I've figured out what's going on, and why no assertions are   > caused by this. It

On 30-Jan-09, at 6:14 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Stefanus Du Toit > <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> wrote: >> The computation of %base then becomes loop-invariant and can be >> lifted out. >> >> What's the best way to add this optimization to LLVM? > > Probably the best place is LICM itself... only loop

For those curious about uses of LLVM, we just officially announced our adoption of LLVM in our products: http://www.rapidmind.com/News-Nov10-08-LLVM-OpenCL.php Thanks for all the support so far on here, we look forward to continuing to work with LLVM! -- Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> RapidMind Inc. phone: +1 519 885 5455 x116 -- fax: +1 519 885 1463

On 1-May-09, at 8:35 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > I still don't understand why this is a problem, but I decreased the > default to 2 bits. Please verify that this helps, I think I've figured out what's going on, and why no assertions are caused by this. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with User* pointer alignment per se (although I believe that could still

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> wrote: > The computation of %base then becomes loop-invariant and can be lifted out. > > What's the best way to add this optimization to LLVM? Probably the best place is LICM itself... only loop transformations are aware whether something is loop-invariant. Although, I'm not completely