similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm jit

hello, I have a question about the llvm jit. Does it use the profile information generated during runtime to enhance the generated code for arm processor? according to 'LLVM: A Compilation Framework for Lifelong Program Analysis **<http://llvm.org/pubs/2004-01-30-CGO-LLVM.html>' it is available but can't find it in the current source code. I really appreciate any help. Thanks in

Hi Sarah, the loop vectorizer runs not on the C code but on LLVM IR this c code was lowered to. Before the loop vectorizer runs many other optimization change the shape of this IR. You can see in the LLVM IR you referenced below, a preceding LLVM IR transformation has change your loop from: > for(int k=20;k<50;k++) > dataY[k] = dataY[k-1]; to > int a = d[19]; >

Actually what I meant in my original loop, that there is a dependency between every two consecutive iterations. So, how the loop vectorizer says 'we can vectorize this loop'? for(int k=20;k<50;k++) dataY[k] = dataY[k-1]; From: Henrique Santos [mailto:henrique.nazare.santos at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 4:28 PM To: Sara Elshobaky Cc: <llvmdev at

Notice that the code you provided, for globals and stack allocations, at least, is semantically equivalent to: int a = d[19]; for(int k = 20; k < 50; k++) dataY[k] = a; Like so, the load you see missing was redundant, probably hoisted by GVN/PRE and replaced with "%.pre". H. On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Sara Elshobaky <sara.elshobaky at gmail.com>wrote: >

Hello, I was trying to trace the Loop vectorizer of the LLVM, I wrote a simple loop with a clear dependency. But found that the debug shows that 'we can vectorize this loop' Here you are my loop with dependency: for(int k=20;k<50;k++) dataY[k] = dataY[k-1]; And the debug prints: LV: Checking a loop in "main" LV: Found a loop: for.body4 LV: Found an

Hello, I'm using MCJIT to run some loops on my ARM processor. I was trying to perform some runtime optimizations on some function, and this requires recompiling the function at runtime. I know that this feature is not available yet in MCJIT , and to modify a function I have to create a new module with the newly optimized code. My questions are: - The newly created module can be

Hello, Please, I need more information on the runtime optimizer used in the LLVM JIT. - Where can I find it in the LLVM source code? - Are those runtime optimizations done on the LLVM representation code or on the machine code? Sara -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello, I'm executing my byte code program by the lli tool using mcjit. I need a way to find statistics about the number of instructions executed for my program. The -stats option does not include this value, are there any other way to know? I need this information to compare different versions of my bytecode program. Please advice Thanks in advance Sara Elsohbaky --------------

Hello, I have the following simple C code below. It should return '8' as a result. But the returned result is false as it returns '1'. When I remove the line of '__attribute__((noinline))' , the returned results are correct '8'. Any idea? Please advice as I need to get the assembly code of the 'getTexSize' function alone. Note: I compile using the

In the past, I've just referenced Chris's CGO 2004 paper when referring to LLVM: C. Lattner and V. Adve. LLVM: A compilation framework for lifelong program analysis & transformation. For sub-projects like Clang and DragonEgg, I just cite the URLs: [4] Clang. clang.llvm.org. [5] DragonEgg. dragonegg.llvm.org. I don't know of any canonical references for these. On Sun, Apr 14,

On 4/14/13 3:35 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > In the past, I've just referenced Chris's CGO 2004 paper when > referring to LLVM: I second that. We at Illinois typically cite Chris's CGO paper. The bibtex is: @InProceedings{LLVM:CGO04, Author = {Chris Lattner and Vikram Adve}, Title = {{LLVM}: A Compilation Framework for Lifelong Program Analysis and

Hello, Can LLVM execute OpenGL ES 2.0 programs safely? As I tried a simple code, and I get some crashes while using lli example LLVM ERROR: Program used external function '__dso_handle' which could not be resolved! Thanks in advance Sara Une messagerie gratuite, garantie à vie et des services en plus, ça vous tente ? Je crée ma boîte mail www.laposte.net -------------- next part

I think this after a second. I got your point. I can define a pseudo instruction for an instr-pair and expand it after post-RA-sched. as you said, in preEmitPass. The original intrinsic can also be kept. I just convert the intrinsic to pseudo instruction in TargetLower. Thank you for your enlightening suggestion! thanks, --lx On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Amara Emerson <amara.emerson at

On 9 February 2017 at 17:31, Amara Emerson <amara.emerson at gmail.com> wrote: > Ping. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Hi Amara, It seems the people who replied in this thread are mostly in sync with the proposal, why don't you push a review in phab, and let's take this to the next level? cheers, --renato

Amara, first, thank you for answering. but I found expandPsuedo instructions actually happens before post-RA, like the following code showing: your approach is a little hacky, right? : ) // Expand pseudo instructions before second scheduling pass. addPass(&ExpandPostRAPseudosID); printAndVerify("After ExpandPostRAPseudos"); // Run pre-sched2 passes. if (addPreSched2())

What I meant was to write your own expansion pass and run it after the scheduler passes, e.g. in the pre-emit stage. > if (addPreEmitPass()) printAndVerify("After PreEmit passes") Though if it's too hacky for you then fair enough. Amara On 23 November 2013 03:17, Liu Xin <navy.xliu at gmail.com> wrote: > Amara, > > first, thank you for answering. but I found

Yes, SVE can vectorize early exit loops by using speculative (first-faulting) loads, which essentially give a predicate of the lanes loaded successfully. For uncounted loops with these special loads, the loop predicate tests can be done using a 'ptest' instruction, checking if the last element is active. Amara On 3 February 2017 at 10:15, Simon Pilgrim <llvm-dev at redking.me.uk>

Unless there are still open issues with your patch, or our internal bots point to problems, I think time has come to flip the switch. Thanks Gerolf > On Dec 18, 2017, at 11:14 AM, Amara Emerson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > FYI all: the patch to enable it is available to review here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41362 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D41362>

FYI all: the patch to enable it is available to review here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41362 Thanks, Amara > On Dec 18, 2017, at 5:44 PM, Amara Emerson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Ok. We’ll look at what we can do to further stress test it in the next two months, additional suggestions from the community is welcome. Patch should be incoming to enable it

I am not using llvm tools, but sources and directly calling into relevant LLVM classes and methods. Thanks, Daman On 23/06/14 4:11 pm, "Amara Emerson" <amara.emerson at gmail.com> wrote: >Hi Damanjit, > >I assume you're trying to use the tools like llvm-mc, in which case >you can use the -mattr=+vfpv3 flag to enable it. This applies to other >subtarget