similar to: [GSoC 2016] Introduction - Polly as an Analysis pass in LLVM

Dear Community, I would like to summarize my work till date for GSoC 2016. Till the current phase of my project, I have mostly focused on developing the necessary infrastructure to use analysis results from Polly in LLVM. Initial plan as mentioned in the proposal: For the first month:- 1. Decouple ScopInfo pass from Polly’s pass chain and provide capability to create SCoP(Static

On 03/23, Hongbin Zheng wrote: > Hi Johannes, > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Johannes Doerfert < > doerfert at cs.uni-saarland.de> wrote: > > > Hey Utpal, > > > > First of, I think you made nice process here and have some very good > > ideas of what we could do in the future. > > > > [NOTE: I CC'ed some people that have shown

Hi ether, Your suggestion is appropriate with respect to LLVM framework. However, I am not aware of such a common interface for Dependence Analysis as there is one for AliasAnalysis. The current plan is to provide the new Dependence Analysis interface that can be used when the other analysis engines fail to provide a concrete result. I do not want to overestimate things by proposing such a common

In the design the LLVM passes always directly communicate with PolyhedralInfo, this requires Polly tightly integrate in to LLVM. If we do not want a tight integration, we can do the following: 1. Introduce an abstract memory dependency query interface, like AliasAnalysis 2. I remember LLVM had already have dependency analysis, this can be the default implementation of the memory dependency query

Hey Utpal, First of, I think you made nice process here and have some very good ideas of what we could do in the future. [NOTE: I CC'ed some people that have shown interest in this topic but I might have forgotten some, therefor I also added the llvm-dev list.] For the upcoming GSoC proposal we should slow down a little bit and reevaluate our goals. After talking to a couple of LLVM and

Hello All, I would like to propose "Polly as an Analysis pass in LLVM <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QyUzL3OOwJSI91lDqr7VsvqUsFyTY9FlpAwbGSipUtw/edit>" as my project for this years GSoC. The broad idea is to provide an API to Polly's dependence framework and integrate it to Loop Vectorizer. Kindly share your thoughts and help me improve the proposal. Regards, Utpal

Hi Utpal, This is a nice proposal :) Can you submit it through the GSoC interface please? I don't see it in the list of applications. Note that the deadline for the final submission is Friday 7pm UTC. Best, -- Mehdi > On Mar 23, 2016, at 1:12 PM, Utpal Bora via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello All, > > I would like to propose "Polly as an

Dear Community members, I am trying to setup *lnt* on a system where I do not have sudo access. I am facing the following issue. Kindly suggest a solution. virtualenv version => 1.11.6 OS => Debian with kernel 3.16.7 *While installing lnt into a virtual environment, I am getting the following error -* *Processing six-1.9.0.tar.gz* *Writing /tmp/easy_install-ZBhMFI/six-1.9.0/setup.cfg*

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

Hi All, git is running very slow for me while cloning from llvm.org/git/llvm.git while it is reasonably fast for me cloning from github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm.git Please suggest which repo is used by most developers or what alternative I can use? Regards, Utpal Bora Ph.D. Scholar +917032002001 Computer Science & Engineering IIT Hyderabad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

Hi Johannes, On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Johannes Doerfert < doerfert at cs.uni-saarland.de> wrote: > Hey Utpal, > > First of, I think you made nice process here and have some very good > ideas of what we could do in the future. > > [NOTE: I CC'ed some people that have shown interest in this topic but I > might have forgotten some, therefor I also added the

** *Hi everyone,As you may know, stock LLVM does not provide the kind of advanced loop transformations necessary to provide good performance on many applications. LLVM's Polly project provides many of the required capabilities, including loop transformations such as fission, fusion, skewing, blocking/tiling, and interchange, all powered by state-of-the-art dependence analysis. Polly also

Hal, Tobias, et al. – I am strongly in favor of seeing a broader range of loop transformations, supported by strong dependence analysis, added to LLVM, and the Polly infrastructure seems to be by far our best bet to make that happen. I have a couple of questions: 1) Integer constraint libraries like ISL (and Omega, which I used extensively in a previous project) are fundamentally solving

Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael, and others, I'd like to add my view (and a proposal) to this discussion and I apologize directly for doing this so late*. I also want to apologize because this email is long, contains various technical details and also argumentations that might need more justification. However, I am happy to provide further information (and/or examples) to explain my views if

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

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017, at 20:49, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev wrote: > [tying to original thread] > > On 09/04/2017 01:37 PM, Adve, Vikram Sadanand via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hal, Tobias, et al. – > > > > I am strongly in favor of seeing a broader range of loop transformations, supported by strong dependence analysis, added to LLVM, and the Polly infrastructure seems to be by far

Hi all, Thank you for everyone that participated in the first round of the discussion <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-January/138267.html>. I’ve incorporated feedback into the draft of the proposal, and I’d appreciate it if you could take another look and share your thoughts. One piece of feedback is that GitHub gists aren’t great for detailed feedback and iteration, so I

Hi everyone, I''m working through the tutorial at the following link and attempting to customise/adapt the lessons for my own slightly different application. Link: Ruby on Rails Tutorial: Learn Rails by Example | Ruby on Rails 3 Tutorial book and screencasts | by Michael Hartl <http://ruby.railstutorial.org/ruby-on-rails-tutorial-book> I''m currently trying to work

On 09/11/2017 12:26 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: > Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael and others, > >> On Sep 1, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> ** >> >> *Hi everyone,As you may know, stock LLVM does not provide the kind of >> advanced loop transformations

Hi all, I am trying to use the dependence analyzer in a pass that I am writing and I was surprised to see an incorrect behavior when I try to query DependenceInfo for dependences between instructions. Specifically, if the two instructions are loads/stores accessing an array in a loop, the depend() method would return a dependence regardless of the order of instructions specified. (i.e. if the two