similar to: Python build dependency in LLVM and/or clang?

Am Fr., 5. Juli 2019 um 07:01 Uhr schrieb Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > > On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 10:43:12AM +0000, Simon Tatham via llvm-dev wrote: > > But before I do that, I wanted to check whether there would be any > > objection on grounds of build dependencies. Is it acceptable to require Python > > as part of the normal build

Hello mailing-list, this is my first post and i hope that you enjoy my very bad but sometimes funny english. My Problem is the following: First of all, my server-config: Samba Version 3.0.20b-3.4-SUSE on a SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 9 with Kernel 2.6.5-7.252-smp Now the problem is, that samba generally works fine, but it doesn't work to work with a special application directly on a

On 11/6/20 12:39 PM, Sjoerd Meijer wrote: Hello Simon, Thanks for your replies, very useful. And yes, thanks for the example and making the target differences clear: ; Some examples: ; RISC-V V & VE(*): ; %mask = (splat i1 1) ; %evl = min(256, %n - %i) ; MVE/SVE : ; %mask = get.active.lane.mask(%i, %n) ; %evl = call @llvm.vscale() ; AVX: ; %mask = icmp (%i + (seq

Hi, Arm have recently announced the v8.1-M architecture specification for our next generation microcontrollers. The architecture includes vector extensions (MVE) and support for low-overhead branches (LoB), which can be thought of a style of hardware loop. Hardware loops aren't new to LLVM, other backends (at least Hexagon and PPC that I know of) also include support. These implementations

On 11/6/20 8:49 AM, Roger Ferrer Ibáñez wrote: Hi Sjoerd, Trying to remember how everything fits together here, but could get.active.lane.mask not create the %mask of the VP intrinsics? Or in other words, in the vectoriser, who's producing the %mask and %evl that is consumed by the VP intrinsics? I'm not sure what would be the best way here. I think about the Loop Vectorizer. I imagine

For RISC-V V and VE being explicit about %evl is important for performance & correctness and that is what VP does. The get.active.lane.mask intrinsic is used as a hint for the MVE, SVE backends to use hardware tail-predication (the backends reverse engineer that hint by pattern matching for get.active.lane.mask in the mask parameter of "some" masked intrinsics). IMHO, it's more

Hi all I have a couple of obscure questions for R/Splus experts (which unfortunately isn't me!) I am trying to compute Bayes Factors using some Splus code of Raftery in Gilks et al (1996). Only problem is 1) R doesn't seem to have a robust covariance (cov.mve) which I suspect I need rather than a non-robust classical estimate 2) Splus has cov.mve BUT dgamma in Splus doesn't have a

Hi, I abandoned that approach and followed Eli's suggestion, see somewhere earlier in this thread, and emit an intrinsic that represents/calculates the active mask. I've just uploaded a new revision for D79100 that implements this. Cheers. ________________________________ From: Simon Moll <Simon.Moll at EMEA.NEC.COM> Sent: 18 May 2020 13:32 To: Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at

> You have similar problems with https://reviews.llvm.org/D79100 The new revision D79100<https://reviews.llvm.org/D79100> solves your comment 1), and I don't think your comments2) and 3) apply as there are no vendor specific intrinsics involved at all here. Just to quickly discuss the optimisation pipeline, D79100<https://reviews.llvm.org/D79100> is a small extension for the

Hello llvm-dev, Would there be any interest in adding a back end to TableGen to produce output in a general-purpose but machine-parsable format? At the moment, TableGen has two kinds of output option. The -gen-foo options are each tailored to a particular use case; the -print-records option is fully general, but it's difficult to machine-parse, since its output is in the same syntax as the

Hi Roger, That's a good example, that shows most of the moving parts involved here. In a nutshell, the difference is, and what we would like to make explicit, is the vector trip versus the scalar loop trip count. In your IR example, the loads/stores are predicated on a mask that is calculated from a splat induction variable, which is compared with the vector trip count. Illustrated with your

Hello, We are working on predication for our vector extension (MVE). Since quite a few people are working on predication and different forms of it (e.g. SVE, RISC-V, NEC), I thought I would share what we would like to add to the loop vectoriser. Hopefully it's just a minor one and not intrusive, but could be interesting and useful for others, and feedback on this is welcome of course. TL;DR:

Invitation accepted, I am happy to help out with reviews, like I did with the previous VP patches. And of course agreed that things should be well defined, and that we shouldn't paint ourselves in a corner, but I don't think that this is the case. And it's not that I am in a rush, but I don't think this change needs to be predicated on a big change landing first like the LV

Dear All, The Minimum Volume Ellipsoid estimator ("cov.mve") was part of S+ but I cannot find it in R. Where can I find it? Why was it excluded? Cheers, Patrik Sweden

The ARM Neon load, store and shuffle operations that I've been implementing recently with LLVM intrinsics do not care about the distinction between vectors with i32 and f32 elements -- only the size matters. But, because we have only MVT::fAny and MVT::iAny types, I've been having to define separate intrinsics for the operations with floating-point vector elements. It

I am looking for feedback to add support for a new loop pragma to Clang/LLVM. With "#pragma tail_predicate" the idea would be to indicate that a loop epilogue/tail can, or should be, folded into the main loop. I see two use cases for this pragma. First, this could be interesting for the vectorizer. It currently supports tail folding by masking all loop instructions/blocks, but does this

Hi Simon, Thanks for reposting the example, and looking at it more carefully, I think it is very similar to my first proposal. This was met with some resistance here because it dumps loop information in the vector preheader. Doing it this early, we want to emit this in the vectoriser, puts a restriction on (future) optimisations that transform vector loops to honour/update/support this intrinsic

Hi Developers, I am looking for another new project to help me get more up to speed on R and to learn something outside of R internals. One recent R issue I have run into is finding a fast implementations of the equivalent to the following SAS code: /* MDPC is an integer sort key made from two integer columns */ MDPC = (MD * 100000) + PCO; /* sort the dataset by the key */ PROC SORT;

; RISC-V V & VE(*): ; %mask = get.active.lane.mask(%i, %i) ; %evl = min(256, %n - %i) ; MVE/SVE/AVX : ; %mask = get.active.lane.mask(%i, %n) ; %evl = call @llvm.vscale() For VE, we want to do as much predication as possible through %evl and as little as possible with %mask. This has performance implications on VE and RISC-V - VE does not generate a mask from %evl but %evl is

Is there public domain code for cov.mve? Thanks, -k =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch