similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM Parallel IR

Dear community, In preparation for the BoF on Parallel IR at the US developers meeting we would like to collect feedback from the whole community. The concerns, ideas, etc. will be summarized in the BoF and should provide a good starting point for a discussion. We know that over the years the topic of a parallel extension for LLVM was discussed on the mailing list [0, 1, 2], workshops [3, 4] or

Sanjoy, Joseph, and I will be hosting a BoF on using LLVM to build compilers for managed languages. We're curious to hear who's planning on attending and what topics you'd like to hear about. Depending on the expected audience, we're happy to do anything between a rough "what to expect getting started" to a down in the weeds working session on relevant optimization

Hello, I have been using the USE class to access the use-def chains of different values. However, what I have noticed is that the set of users of a particular value is limited for the appearance of that variable in the current function. How can I get the interprocedural use of a particular value? For example, if a variable *a* is used as an argument in a function call *foo*, the USE analysis

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 3:05 PM Dounia Khaldi via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Thanks for your reply. > > Yes, I was about to recurse over the use list of the argument in the > called function. I did not want to pursue that because with this solution, > I am going to implement the interprocedural part myself and was wondering > if that was not already

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I was about to recurse over the use list of the argument in the called function. I did not want to pursue that because with this solution, I am going to implement the interprocedural part myself and was wondering if that was not already done. I was not also 100% sure that this will work for any type of arguments. If, based on your response, this is my only solution

Hello, In one of the loop transformations I am developing, I need to convert eq and neq loop latch condition into less than or greater than depending on the control flow. The problem is that CmpInst::ICMP_EQ and CmpInst::ICMP_NE are neither signed nor unsigned in LLVM. Also, I did not find a way to find out if the integer operands of the CmpInst are signed or unsigned. Apparently, LLVM does

On 9 March 2015 at 17:30, Tobias Grosser <tgrosser at inf.ethz.ch> wrote: > If my memories are right, one of the critical issues (besides > other engineering considerations) was that parallelism metadata in LLVM is > optional and can always be dropped. However, for > OpenMP it sometimes is incorrect to execute a loop sequential that has been > marked parallel in the source

Hello, I was implementing the llvm_any_type in my intrinsic def int_csa_xxx : Intrinsic<[llvm_any_ty], [llvm_i32_ty]>; as the following in its corresponding builtins in Builtins.def: BUILTIN(__builtin_xxx, "v.", "nt") the "t" was sufficient here to not perform any type checking. The type checking was handled in CGBuiltin.cpp. This was working until

At least one proprietary linker put a lot of effort into deduplicating and rewriting debug information. This took up the majority of the link time despite serious engineering time on performance optimisation. For example, some sections were written from scratch by the linker because that proved faster than parsing the input. Teaching LLD to dedup DWARF should be expected to dramatically slow it

Hi all, I'm a grad student from MIT and as part of my thesis, I will be propagating parallelism in the IR level. I will be modifying clang and adding LLVM IR metadata annotations to indicate parallel regions and loops, then write optimizer passes that will run on top of the annotated LLVM IR. There has been a lot of research lately on Parallel IRs, such as SPIR[1

Dear List-serv members: How can I structure a for loop so that it will increment the counter by two using R? I am just looking for a simple example that shows where the incrementing part should go. Thanks! Jennifer -- Jennifer Hayes Clark Assistant Professor Department of Political Science University of Houston Houston, TX 77204-3011 [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Thanks Arpith for this pointer but it did not contain what I was looking for. However, I solved my issue by finding that the BitCastInst used when outlining OpenMP parallel region offers a method for retrieving the original value within the bitcast via stripPointerCasts(). So what I did to retrieve omp_outlined..45 is: //bitcast is the third argument of __kmpc_fork_call Value *vcall =

¿Alguien sabe si el test de reacciones extremas de Moses está escrito en algún paquete de R? Gracias de antemano.

Any ideas how I would go about writing specs for views which make use of content_for? I''d like, for example, to be able to specify that ABC view places XYZ in the sidebar, which I do using content_for(:sidebar). Am I missing something obvious? Kyle

Stumbled around a bit until I figured out you need to do this: gem install deep_merge to get it to work ! “Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.” Bill Waterson (Calvin & Hobbes) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group.

Hi, On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > No, I mean in terms of enabling other optimizations in the pipeline like > vectorizer. Outliner does not expose any of that. I have not made a lot of effort to understand the full discussion here (so what I say below may be off-base), but I think there are some cases where

Trying to update a RHEL5 x86_64 server Yum sees puppet-server 3.1.0-1.el5, but does not see puppet 3.1.0-1.el5 I tried cleaning out the cache and trying again, but no luck. I am going to download the RPM and localinstall it so I am not held up. “Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.” Bill

Hi all, Is there a function attribute or otherwise way to query whether a function could write to memory that outlives itself? For example writing to a global or memory passed in via a function argument would be writing to memory that outlives the function, but writing to a stack variable or allocation that isn't returned would not. Cheers, Billy Moses -------------- next part

Hi, I noted a discrepancy between R and openepi when I ran a fisher test with the same matrix. In R: > a=matrix(c(1,2,6,17), nrow=2) > a [,1] [,2] [1,] 1 6 [2,] 2 17 > fisher.test(a, conf.int=T) Fisher's Exact Test for Count Data data: a p-value = 1 alternative hypothesis: true odds ratio is not equal to 1 95 percent confidence interval: 0.02061498

Hi, On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > The way I interpret Quentin's statement is something like: > > - Inlining turns an interprocedural problem into an intraprocedural problem > - Outlining turns an intraprocedural problem into an interprocedural problem > > Insofar as our intraprocedural analyses and transformations are