similar to: [LLVMdev] [GSoC] Improvent of PRE in LLVM compiler

On 8/8/19 2:03 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: Hi, First, as a high-level note, you posted a link to a Google doc, and at the end of the Google doc, you have a list of questions that you'd like answered. In the future, please put the questions directly in the email. For one thing, more people will read your email than will open your Google doc. Second, having the questions in the email should allow a

Hello all, We are students from Indian Institute of Technology(IIT), Hyderabad, we would like to propose the addition of the following pragmas in LLVM that aide in (or possibly increase the scope of) vectorization in LLVM (in comparison with other compilers). 1. ivdep 2. Nontemporal 3. [no]vecremainder 4. [no]mask_readwrite 5. [un]aligned Could you please

> There is a fundamental problem with the way that ivdep is defined by Intel's current documentation, at least for C/C++. As you note in your Google doc, it essentially says that the optimizer may ignore loop-carried dependencies except for those dependencies it can definitely prove are present. These are not semantics that any other compiler can actually replicate, and is not equivalent to

The GVN algorithm used in LLVM currently (I'm rewriting it) is the basic hash based RPO algorithm. The new one i'm writing is based on http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=512536 (see https://github.com/dberlin/llvm-gvn-rewrite) LLVM has different algorithms for both scalar PRE and load PRE. They are basically variants of standard PRE algorithms transformed into SSA, but with some

Hello everyone I am Rakshit Singla, a third year undergrad at IIT Hyderabad, India. I finished a basic compilers course last semester and am currently doing a compiler optimizations course. I have been exploring LLVM for the past few months (wrote a front-end for the Classroom Object Oriented Language and have been studying pieces of code.) I would like to work with LLVM and contribute to the

Hi Dangeti, Ramakrishna, Adam, and Gerolf, >Yes this is an area that needs further improvement. We have some immediate plans to make these more useful. See the recent llvm-dev threads [1], [2]. It takes a lot of dedicated effort to make vectorization report easier to understand by ordinary programmers (i.e., those who are not compiler writers). Having done that for ICC ourselves, we truly

Dear LLVM Community, I am D Tharun Kumar, masters student at Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad, working in a team to improve current vectorizer in LLVM. As an initial study, we are studying various benchmarks to analyze and compare vectorizing capabilities of LLVM, GCC and ICC. We found that vectorization remarks given by LLVM are vague and brief, comparatively GCC and ICC are giving

Hi all I am relatively new to LLVM and I am still trying to work my way through. What I am trying to implement is a list of array access and indices of the same within loops. I can then probably try to work on dependencies they can have. I have already got all the Basic blocks in a loop and I am looking at load & store instructions to reconstruct array access (casting GEP instructions). I

Hi, Hopefully the video Michael posted will help you, thanks for posting. It's more useful to the user of these passes than the developer I guess (it describes the theoretical background, hurdles of the implementation etc.). But the two passes we describe, DependenceAnalysis and MemorySSA, have very clean interfaces so you shouldn't have a problem in that matter. You probably want to look

vecremainder/novecremainder: Should the pragma simply call the vectorizer to attempt to vectorize the remainder loop, or should the vectorizer use a different method? > > Something like that. There were patches posted at some point to enable tail-loop vectorization. At this point, I imagine that you'd construct a VPlan with the vectorized tail. Yep, committed in

Hi, I am Adil Arun Dangui, a 3rd year B.Tech student at IIT Hyderabad with a CGPA of 9.17. I am interested in Compilers, Compiler Optimizations and excited about LLVM and Polly. I have some familiarity of LLVM structure as we studied it in the Compiler Engineering course at IITH. Here

Hi Devs, I am Kamlesh Kumar,CS undergraduate at NIT Manipur,India. I have been programming in C/C++ for more than 3 year. I have gone through various LLVM Core libraries and it's tool as well implemented it in my project .I am well aware of core concepts related to LLVM and it's code base, I have read three books available at Safari Online Books 1. LLVM - Essentials 2. LLVM - Cookbook 3.

Hi, I am interested in applying to LLVM as part Google Summer of Code 2015. I have been going through LLVM code since about 4 months now, and while going though mailing list discussions I found particular interest in the point raised by Arch Robinson in January about the development of a floating point range check pass in LLVM. I have been in touch with Arch as well as Hal Finkel about this and

Hi, I am working on some changes to LazyValueInfo and I wanted to see how it was used in existing passes. Currently I can see that Jump Threading and Correlated Value Propagation are the 2 passes that use LazyValueInfo. However on the LLVM docs page of passes (http://llvm.org/docs/Passes.html <http://llvm.org/docs/Passes.html>), Correlated Value Propagation is not mentioned as a pass. Does

Hi all, I'm a 3rd year CSE B.Tech student and have been studying LLVM since the past year. I have written a pass for doing register allocation as part of my course project and have also been studying LLVM code sections related to SSA construction, dominance frontiers,etc. I also made some contributions to the Polly project. Currently I am interested in improving the existing alias analysis

Dear Samba members, I am wondering if on joining a realm (with security=ADS), samba 3.x server gets automatically registered with MS Dynamic DNS server. My test with Samba 3.0.14a on linux did not reveal any such capability. But may be because I did not use the correct option? I would appreciate any help. Thanks in advance, -Arup Biswas

Hello Tim, Thank you for the information. I am wondering if anyone else is facing the same issue? Or it is just that my institute firewall is creating the problem. Regards, Utpal Bora Ph.D. Scholar +917032002001 Computer Science & Engineering IIT Hyderabad On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Uptal, > > On 20 March 2016

> On Oct 10, 2016, at 2:50 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > > From: "Dangeti Tharun kumar via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> > To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Cc: "Santanu Das" <cs15mtech11018 at iith.ac.in <mailto:cs15mtech11018 at

Dear community, Our team at IITH have been experimenting with loop-distribution pass in LLVM. We see the following results on few benchmarks. clang -O3 -mllvm -enable-loop-distribute -Rpass=loop-distribute file.c clang -O3 -mllvm -enable-loop-distribute -Rpass-analysis=loop-distribute file.c TORCH

The Loop Optimization Working Group had a survey about “canonical” loop required by each loop transformation or analysis. That is, what should we normalize a loop before running a certain loop pass. Here is the survey result: https://tinyurl.com/rhuzny2 (Note that there are two workspaces: “By precondition” and “Breakdown”) Best - Min > On Dec 22, 2019, at 2:40 AM, Shraiysh Vaishay via