similar to: [LLVMdev] loop fusion in LLVM

Hi Qi, No, we don’t have loop fusion. The loop fusion transformation itself is easy, but the profitability and legality checks are challenging. For legality, you would need to analyze the memory that you access and figure out that it is legal to fuse the loops. For profitability you would need to predict the effect on performance. You would need to predict register pressure and resource

Thanks a lot for your input. We will look more into the legality and profitability checks you've mentioned. -Qi On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Qi, > > No, we don’t have loop fusion. The loop fusion transformation itself is > easy, but the profitability and legality checks are challenging. For > legality, you would need

Hi all, I have created a patch (up for review at: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17386) that does Loop Fusion implementation. Approach: Legality: Currently it can fuse two adjacent loops whose iteration spaces are same and are at same depth. Dependence legality: Currently, dependence legality cannot be checked across loops. Hence the loops are cloned along a versioned path, unconditionally fused

Hi, Thanks for the reply. Few thoughts inlined. On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Vikram, > > On Feb 18, 2016, at 9:21 AM, Vikram TV via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have created a patch (up for review at: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17386) > that does Loop Fusion implementation.

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 6:27 AM, Vikram TV <vikram.tarikere at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Vikram TV <vikram.tarikere at gmail.com <mailto:vikram.tarikere at gmail.com>> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the reply. Few thoughts inlined. > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 9, 2016, at 9:21 AM, Vikram TV via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From: *"Vikram TV via

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:34 PM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi Vikram, >> >> Is the analysis result specific to a loop nest or to a loop nest together >> with a set of reference groups? >> > The result is specific to each loop in the loop nest and the calculations > are based on the references in the loop nest. > >

Hi, We are proposing a loop fusion pass that tries to proactive fuse loops across function call boundaries and arbitrary control flow. http://reviews.llvm.org/D7008 With this pass, we get 103 loop fusions in SPECCPU INT 2006 462.libquantum with rate performance improving close to 2.5X in x86 (results from AMD A10-6700). I took some liberties in patching up some of the code in

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adam Nemet" <anemet at apple.com> > To: "Ramshankar Ramanarayanan" <Ramshankar.Ramanarayanan at amd.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 12:20:55 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] proof of concept for a loop fusion pass > > > On Jan 15, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Ramanarayanan,

I would like to nominate Nadav Rotem for the x86 backend. Michael On Nov 15, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 15, 2012, at 7:45 AM, "Du Toit, Stefanus" <stefanus.du.toit at intel.com> wrote: > >> I'd like to propose that Michael Liao become the code owner for the x86 backend. >> >> Michael has been

Hi, This is a proposal about implementing an analysis that calculates loop cost based on cache data. The primary motivation for implementing this is to write profitability measures for cache related optimizations like interchange, fusion, fission, pre-fetching and others. I have implemented a prototypical version at http://reviews.llvm.org/D21124. The patch basically creates groups of references

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dibyendu Das" <Dibyendu.Das at amd.com> > To: "Adam Nemet" <anemet at apple.com>, "Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Ashutosh Nema" <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com>, "Hal > Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 5:45:27 AM > Subject: RE: [LLVMdev]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Vikram TV via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *To: *"DEV" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *Sent: *Wednesday, June 8, 2016 2:58:17 AM > *Subject: *[llvm-dev] [Proposal][RFC] Cache aware Loop Cost Analysis >

It’s a good thought in general Adam, but I worried about following scenarios: 1) As Dibyendu already mentioned Check1 + Check2 is not very clear. If your intent is superset/union of check1 & check2 then I’m not sure it will always help passes those needs smaller checks (i.e. loop distribution) Every pass has a different need of runtime check, i.e. vectorizer checks each memory against all

Andrew, There is not any transformation in LLVM that does loop fusion. I do not of anyone who is working on this. If you're interested to work on it then it'd be great! - Devang On Sep 8, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Andrew Clinton wrote: > I did find this note from 2004 that references a LoopFusion pass, but I > can't find it in the source code: >

On 8 September 2010 18:21, Devang Patel <dpatel at apple.com> wrote: > Andrew, > > There is not any transformation in LLVM that does loop fusion. I do not of anyone who is working on this. If you're interested to work on it then it'd be great! Hi Devang, Do you know if any pass is taking metadata to avoid un-optimizing? Loop fusion can make it worse if you have strong

There is a work taking place by multiple people in this area and more is expected to happen and I’d like to make sure we’re working toward a common end goal. I tried to collect the use-cases for run-time memory checks and the specific memchecks required for each: 1. Loop Vectorizer: each memory access is checked against all other memory accesses in the loop (except read vs read) 2. Loop

On Mon, 27 Aug 2018, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2018-08-27, Zach Cheung <kuroro.zhang at gmail.com> wrote: > > After upgrading my VMware Fusion (10.1.3) Arch Guest to the latest with > > OpenSSH upgraded from 7.7p1 to 7.8p1, found that ssh from macOS Sierra > > (10.12.6) host to Arch guest via local NAT port forwarding failed, but via > > Arch LAN IP worked,

Hi All, I've had issues over the last few days trying to create a Centos server image . I've tried with Vmware fusion and Vmware server and it skips directly to the default desktop install and doesn't give me the option to run the linux server. I am not sure if you've seen this earlier. I've tried with Centos 5.8 and 6.0 but the installer seems to work in that manner .

After upgrading my VMware Fusion (10.1.3) Arch Guest to the latest with OpenSSH upgraded from 7.7p1 to 7.8p1, found that ssh from macOS Sierra (10.12.6) host to Arch guest via local NAT port forwarding failed, but via Arch LAN IP worked, downgraded OpenSSH from 7.8p1 to 7.7p1 fixed the problem. Any idea about this bug? VMware Fusion NAT Port Forwarding setup: VMware Fusion ? NAT Port Forwarding