similar to: [LLVMdev] SchedMachineModel clarifications

Hi Mike, Thank you for the link and my bad last mail has the old patch file. Please have look at the attached patch file herewith,which has the latest changes. i'm new to llvm testing framework and cross compilation as such ,Please can you through some lights like references etc ,Which states that how can i cross compile the llvm for Bulldozer and run the performance test against my

I made a quick cross check with information in the SWOG (Software Optimization Guide). The port assignments look consistent. A few of the latency values are slightly different from the SWOG, e.g. WriteFRcp --> 6, WriteFSqrt --> 29 and WriteCvt* --> 4 seem to be suggested instead. Others are in better position to describe how to use llvm performance framework. --mev, Mike Vermeulen

Dear Andrew and the Group, I’m trying come up with a SchedMachineModel for the AMD bulldozer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(microarchitecture). The model is not exist for the same .Please correct me if am i wrong here. I was going through your reference @ https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/include/llvm/Target/TargetSchedule.td . But I couldn’t model some of the

Dear All, Attached files is related to the changes made to add the Schedmodel for a AMD bulldozer target, Please note that , the model is incomplete but has some of the valuables features implemented. Request to the group or someone from AMD for the comments on the implementation. Thanks ~umesh On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at gmail.com>wrote: >

Tom , Thank you for correcting me here , All , Please review the changes made and is it ok to commit ?? Thanks ~Umesh On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > Hi Umesh, > > You should send patches to llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu, also each patch > should be its own plain-text attachment. > > -Tom > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at

Is there a way to convert between SchedMachineModel and Itineraries? I was trying to write a very simple VLIW packetizer (Hexagon was my starting point). It turns out that current DFAPacketizer is using itineraries, but my schedule is based on SchedMachineModel (I was recommended to use it since the itineraries are being phased out). I was wondering if there is an automated tool that would

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rail Shafigulin via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 10:09:07 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Is there a way to convert between SchedMachineModel and Itineraries? > > > Anybody? Does anyone at all know how to do it? There is

On 30.11.2011, at 08:33, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Jan, > >> if I compile with dragonegg and -march=native I get this message: >> 'bdver1' is not a recognized processor for this target (ignoring processor) > > this is coming directly from LLVM which doesn't know about bulldozer yet. > >> Is there any plan to support this cpu ? > > I don't

> On Nov 9, 2015, at 10:49 AM, Rail Shafigulin <rail at esenciatech.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Rail Shafigulin via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> > > To:

Hello, if I compile with dragonegg and -march=native I get this message: 'bdver1' is not a recognized processor for this target (ignoring processor) Is there any plan to support this cpu ? Here the full example the source file doesn't matter. gcc -s -static -Wall -O2 -march=native -fplugin=dragonegg.so -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-enable-gcc-optzns pointer.c -o pointer

For a while now we (Cray) have had some very primitive cache structure information encoded into our version of LLVM. Given the more complex memory structures introduced by Bulldozer and various accelerators, it's time to do this Right (tm). So I'm looking for some feedback on a proposed design. The goal of this work is to provide Passes with useful information such as cache sizes,

Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at googlemail.com> writes: > On 30.11.2011, at 08:33, Duncan Sands wrote: > >> Hi Jan, >> >>> if I compile with dragonegg and -march=native I get this message: >>> 'bdver1' is not a recognized processor for this target (ignoring processor) >> >> this is coming directly from LLVM which doesn't know about

Hi Jan, > if I compile with dragonegg and -march=native I get this message: > 'bdver1' is not a recognized processor for this target (ignoring processor) this is coming directly from LLVM which doesn't know about bulldozer yet. > Is there any plan to support this cpu ? I don't know. Hopefully someone who knows something about this will comment. Ciao, Duncan. >

Dear list members, I am using Mclust in order to deconvolute a distribution that I believe is a sum of two gaussians. First I can make a model: > my.data.model = Mclust(my.data, modelNames=c("E"), warn=T, G=1:3) But then, when I try to plot the result, I get the following error: > mclust1Dplot(my.data.model, parameters = my.data.model$parameters, what = "density")

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:40 AM, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: > For a while now we (Cray) have had some very primitive cache structure > information encoded into our version of LLVM.  Given the more complex > memory structures introduced by Bulldozer and various accelerators, it's > time to do this Right (tm). > > So I'm looking for some feedback on a

After discussing with Xavi in #gluster-dev we found out that we could eliminate the slow lstats by disabling disperse.eager-lock. There is an open issue here : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1546732 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20180226/77e194f8/attachment.html>

Hello, the code below the failing part mentions this flavor of protocol, drivers/blazer_ser.c:463 /* * If a command is invalid, it will be echoed back. * As an exception, Best UPS units will report "ACK" in case of success! */ I prepared a patch, it adds a similar check and also checks (in both occurencies) for blazer_command()<0, the latter

Better be quick! I am adding FMA4 and XOP now, and if you contribute code before I do, you can spare yourself some XOP merging. - Jan ----- Original Message ----- > From: David A. Greene <greened at obbligato.org> > To: Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at googlemail.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2011 12:19 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev]

Hi I'm seeing quite high cpu sys utilisation and an increased system load the past few days on my servers. It appears it doesn't start at exactly the same time for the different servers, but I've not (yet) been able to pin the cpu usage to a specific task or entries in the logs. The cluster is running distribute with 8nodes and 4 bricks each version 3.10 The nodes have 32 (HT) cores

Jan Sjodin <jan_sjodin at yahoo.com> writes: > Better be quick! I am adding FMA4 and XOP now, and if you contribute > code before I do, you can spare yourself some XOP merging. Go ahead. We're not going to get there soon enough. :( -Dave