similar to: [GSoC] Project Proposal: Parallel extensions for llvm analysis and transform framework

<mehdi.amini at apple.com>, Bcc: Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC][PIR] Parallel LLVM IR -- Stage 0 -- IR extension Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <20170224221713.GA931 at arch-linux-jd.home> Ping. PS. Are there actually people interested in this? We will continue working anyway but it might not make sense to put it on reviews and announce it on the ML if nobody cares. On 02/24,

A quick update, we have been looking through all LLVM passes to identify the impact of "IR-region annotation", and interaction issues with the rest of LoopOpt and scalarOpt, e.g. interaction with vectorization when you have schedule(simd:guided: 64). What are the common properties for optimizer to know on IR-region annotations. We have our implementation working from O0, O1, O2 to O3.

> On Mar 8, 2017, at 10:55 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 8, 2017, at 5:36 AM, Johannes Doerfert <doerfert at cs.uni-saarland.de> wrote: >> >> <mehdi.amini at apple.com>, >> Bcc: >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC][PIR] Parallel LLVM IR -- Stage 0 -- IR extension >> Reply-To: >>

On 03/08/2017 12:44 PM, Johannes Doerfert wrote: > I don't know who pointed it out first but Mehdi made me aware of it at > CGO. I try to explain it shortly. > > Given the following situation (in pseudo code): > > alloc A[100]; > parallel_for(i = 0; i < 100; i++) > A[i] = f(i); > > acc = 1; > for(i = 0; i < 100; i++) > acc = acc *

".... the problem Mehdi pointed out regarding the missed initializations of array elements, did you comment on that one yet?" What is the initializations of array elements question? I don't remember this question. Please refresh my memory. Thanks. I thought Mehdi's question is more about what are attributes needed for these IR-annotation for other LLVM pass to understand and

The IR-region annotation we proposed is as below, there is no @llvm.parallel.for.iterator()..... There is no change to loop CFG. alloc A[100]; %t = call token @llvm.region.entry()["parallel.for"()] for(i = 0; i < 100; i++) { a[i] = f(i); } @llvm.region.exit(%t)() ["end.parallel.for"()] Xinmin -----Original Message----- From: Johannes Doerfert

I assume the referring case is something like below, right? #pragma omp parallel num_threads(n) { #pragma omp critical { x = x + 1; } } If that is the case, the programmer is already writing the code that is not "serial equivalent". Our representation for parallelizer is %t = @llvm.region.entry()["omp.parallel"(),

> On Mar 8, 2017, at 11:50 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > > On 03/08/2017 01:24 PM, Tian, Xinmin wrote: >> I assume the referring case is something like below, right? >> >> #pragma omp parallel num_threads(n) >> { >> #pragma omp critical >> { >> x = x + 1; >> } >> }

Dear all, This RFC proposes three new LLVM IR instructions to express high-level parallel constructs in a simple, low-level fashion. For this first stage we prepared two commits that add the proposed instructions and a pass to lower them to obtain sequential IR. Both patches have be uploaded for review [1, 2]. The latter patch is very simple and the former consists of almost only mechanical

Hi, I'm current using LLVM 2.5 to JIT code in a event driven language running on a game engine. Haven't updated to 2.7 yet, but I do intend to. When checking for memory leaks I found that each time I was calling EE->runFunction after creating a stub function to execute an event, all the pass information was being repeatedly added to PMDataManager. I have changed addAnalysisImplsPair

Yet another hang on boot issue wqith 4.9. I havn't seen anything the same go through the list and I've searched the archives but not found anything appropriate. Box that has been rock solid under 4.8-P3, took it to 4.9-R and 4.9-STABLE (as of today) and it hangs on boot after the apm0 line. It's doing SMP and the motherboard has hyperthreading enabled. It won't break out to the

Hi Johannes, > I am especially curious where you get your data from. Tapir [0] (and to > some degree PIR [1]) have shown that, counterintuitively, only a few changes > to LLVM passes are needed. Tapir was recently used in an MIT class with a > lot of students and it seemed to work well with only minimal changes > to analysis and especially transformation passes. TAPIR is an

I'm unfamiliar with the leak you've just described, but Jeffrey Yasskin has done a lot of work cleaning up leaks for 2.7 and trunk. I was just going to mention that unless the function you are calling via runFunction has a simple prototype that's special cased in runFunction, it will generate its own stub function for every call. If you don't want to worry about that, you can call

On 10 March 2015 at 08:36, Kevin Streit <streit at mailbox.org> wrote: > Again, optimizations could break it, violating a possible contract with the user. AFAIK, all these annotations are more hints than contracts. Adding #pragma omp simd on a loop that has forward dependencies that cannot be solved should not make the loop vectorize (incorrectly). Same goes for standard OMP, threads and

Hey Paul, Thanks for the reply! If you wanted you could try my radio stream, http://stream.socorock.com:8000/socorock.ogg.m3u - that's really good news, I think I'm gonna pick up one of these things soon! What a great way to listen to radio. Cheers, Jordan On 02/26/2012 12:01 AM, Paul Webster wrote: > The Grace and Logitech devices can play streaming OGG. I have different models of

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Jan 19, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Adve, Vikram Sadanand via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Johannes, > > > >> I am especially curious where you get your data from. Tapir [0] (and to > >> some degree PIR [1]) have

Hi, We are using kernel 2.4.24, tcng version 10b. I''m trying to do some policing in the ingress queue of the internet device. Until now we had configured some filters dividing traffic into queues, and on these queues the Double Leaky bucket meter was applied. The idea is to have a minimum of bandwidth assigned per class (the cir values) and a maximum (pir values), just as with the

Hi ether, On 12/26/09 13:06, ether zhhb wrote: > hi, > > dose anyone going/planning to add something like > Graphite(http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Graphite) in gcc to llvm(or that > should be implement at the level of clang?)? I already looked into implementing something like Graphite for LLVM. However just recently, so I have not released any code yet. As soon as some code is

I found some ancillary information that seems to indicate that there is a driver that will allow a D-Link DGE-550SX Gigabit fiber NIC to work under FreeBSD 4.x. Can anyone confirm or refute this, or provide additional information? If the NIC is not supported, is there a recommendation for a gigabit fiber NIC that works well under 4.8? Thanks, Steve

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of Hal Finkel > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 1:35 AM > > I'd like to add that, mostly through Tobi's efforts, we were able to have isl (the > integer set library) on which Polly depends relicensed such that it is now > distributed under the MIT