similar to: Implement Loop Fusion Pass

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 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 >

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, 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

> > > A primary drawback in the above patch is the static use of Cache Line > Size. I wish to get this data from tblgen/TTI and I am happy to submit > patches on it. > > Yes, this sounds like the right direction. The targets obviously need to > provide this information. > I'd like to help review this as it'll be necessary to implement http://wg21.link/p0154r1

Hi, I am a student and my team is trying to identify a suitable topic for our compiler class final project. The requirement is to implement some optimization in LLVM that is not already existed, at least not in the list of standard opt that LLVM already has. We are looking at loop fusion as a potential candidate topic. Since we are all new to LLVM we would like to ask for experts' opinions

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

Hi all, The AllowFPOpFusion option passed to a target can currently take 3 different values, Fast, Standard or Strict (TargetOptions.h), being Standard the default. In the DAGCombiner, during the combination of mul and add/subtract into multiply-and-add/subtract, this option is expected to be Fast in order to enable the combine. This means, that by default no multiply-and-add opcodes are going

----- 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,

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

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

Hi Tim, Thanks for the thorough explanation. It makes perfect sense. I was not aware fast-math is supposed to prevent more precision being used than what is in the standard. I came across this issue while looking into the output or different compilers. XL and Microsoft compiler seem to have that turned on by default. But I assume that clang follows what gcc does, and have that turned off.

Hi, We - Venkatesh Mysore and Salvatore Paxia of the New York University's Bioinformatics Group under Prof.Bud Mishra - have been working on enhancements to R for a while now. We're happy to announce that we have some good stuff up and running now: 1. A debuggable Microsoft Visual C version ( _MSC_VER) of R-1.7.0: R-1.7.0-msc (YES !!!!) 2. COM/OLE-support that will allow invoking of

----- 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]

Thanks for the feedback. Sounds like that at this point in time we can’t really settle on a single strategy. We probably want to support all of these uses-cases: 1. A common early loop-versioning pass, probably fairly conservative initially (e.g. if you need a single memcheck to remove all may-aliasing from a hight-trip-count loop it’s probably a good idea to version). Even if the pass would

Well, you don't give much of an example.... I'm replying CC to the R mailing list. Please ask questions there, rather than adressing individuals for basic help. Here is one; does it answer your question ? data(agriculture) ag.ag <- agnes(agriculture) class(ag.ag) pltree(ag.ag) # the dendrogram, if you want to see it ## cut the dendrogram -> get cluster assignments: (ck3 <-

Full_Name: Venkatesh Mysore Version: R-1.7.0 OS: WindowsXP Submission from: (NULL) (216.165.110.10) While accessing Rproxy.dll repeatedly (using the code from the (D)COM example in the R website) causes a failure in the 24th iteration. R-1.6.2 does NOT give this error. This seems to be a memory management error, that might be linked to the huge leakage difference between R-1.7.0 and R-1.6.2

I am running a pairwise wilcoxon signed rank test, and I am not sure how to interpret the result. I would like to see if there is a difference between the values in conditions a and b. It doesn't seem possible to have a V = 0, but a significant p value. Am I doing something wrong? The command I used is this: wilcox.test(x=a$x,y=b$x,paired=TRUE) The output looks like this: Wilcoxon