similar to: [ORC] [mlir] Dump assembly from OrcJit

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1000 matches similar to: "[ORC] [mlir] Dump assembly from OrcJit"

2020 Apr 15
3
Backend emitting to string instead of file
I can use llc to compile my IR module to amdgcn with some non-zero output. However, if try to write the output (assembly or object) to a string (via buffer_ostream) the resulting string has always zero length. Here the code changes I do: Original llc:       if (Target->addPassesToEmitFile(PM, *OS,                                       DwoOut ? &DwoOut->os() : nullptr,
2019 Sep 10
2
Google’s TensorFlow team would like to contribute MLIR to the LLVM Foundation
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 1:40 PM David Greene via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > > > But perhaps more importantly, as Hal states clearly, is the need for > > an official specification, similar to the one for LLVM IR, as well as > > a formal document with the expected semantics into
2019 Sep 09
5
Google’s TensorFlow team would like to contribute MLIR to the LLVM Foundation
Hi all, The TensorFlow team at Google has been leading the charge to build a new set of compiler infrastructure, known as the MLIR project <https://github.com/tensorflow/mlir>. The initial focus has been on machine learning infrastructure, high performance accelerators, heterogeneous compute, and HPC-style computations. That said, the implementation and design of this infrastructure is
2019 Sep 09
5
Google’s TensorFlow team would like to contribute MLIR to the LLVM Foundation
Overall, I think it will be a good move. Maintenance wise, I'm expecting the existing community to move into LLVM (if not all in already), so I don't foresee any additional costs. Though, Hal's points are spot on... On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 18:47, Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > 3. As a specific example of the above, the current development
2019 Sep 11
5
Google’s TensorFlow team would like to contribute MLIR to the LLVM Foundation
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 1:54 PM David Greene <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: > Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> writes: > > > Of course by its nature, MLIR doesn't lend itself to concrete semantic > >> descriptions, though I would expect the affine dialect (and others) to > >> have documentation on par with the LLVM IR. > > > > >
2019 Sep 09
3
Google’s TensorFlow team would like to contribute MLIR to the LLVM Foundation
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 22:22, Chris Lattner <clattner at google.com> wrote: > Including a bunch of content, eg a full langref doc: > https://github.com/tensorflow/mlir/blob/master/g3doc/LangRef.md Thanks Chris, that looks awesome! This one could perhaps be improved with time: https://github.com/tensorflow/mlir/blob/master/g3doc/ConversionToLLVMDialect.md Which I think was Hal's
2017 Apr 24
1
[FFI] [OrcJIT] Status update on C FFI for OrcJIT?
I looked around for the status of OrcJIT FFI support. The last e-mail thread I could find was this one: Link <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-February/081679.html> Raw: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-February/081679.html Is OrcJIT now considered stable enough that there can be "official" exposed C APIs? If not, what's the standard approach if I
2019 Nov 15
5
MLIR landing in the monorepo
Hi, (bcc: mlir at tensorflow.org FYI) I am following-up on the integration of MLIR in LLVM as a subproject (Re: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-October/135687.html ). We're aiming to integrate into the monorepo next month. Right now our intent is for MLIR to live in a top-level directory in parallel to clang, lldb, lld, etc. Our top option for the integration is to perform a
2018 Jul 01
2
I've seen OrcJit is under overhaul, and also the MCJIT, so what's the plan?
I didn't seen any roadmap and plan about OrcJit & MCJIT. And would OrcJIT be stablize in version 7.0? Or latter version? Would MCJIT be removed in source tree, when? -- 此致 礼 罗勇刚 Yours sincerely, Yonggang Luo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:
2019 Nov 15
3
MLIR landing in the monorepo
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 8:54 AM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 5:03 AM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> (bcc: mlir at tensorflow.org FYI) >> >> I am following-up on the integration of MLIR in LLVM as a subproject (Re: >>
2015 Feb 01
3
[LLVMdev] OrcJIT in LLVM C bindings
Hello, I was wondering if there is someone already working on putting the new OrcJIT APIs in the LLVM-C bindings? Also, is there a general consensus to also add C bindings when new major features are added? Hayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150201/061f5949/attachment.html>
2019 May 21
2
RFC: changing variable naming rules in LLVM codebase
Hi folks, Git is on its way to learning how to ignore commits, allowing us to do variable renaming and other small refactorings without breaking git blame. It's like git-hyper-blame [1] but significantly more powerful as it uses fuzzy matching to match lines, including lines that may have been split or joined. A preview release of Git with this new feature is at:
2015 Mar 17
3
[LLVMdev] How will OrcJIT guarantee thread-safety when a function is asked to be re generated?
I've been playing with OrcJIT a bit, and from the looks of it I can (like in the previous JIT I suppose?) ask for a function to be re generated. If I've given the address of the function that LLVM gave me to an external party, do "I" need to ensure thread-safety? Or is it safe to ask OrcJIT to re generate code at that address and everything will work magically? I'm
2019 Jun 07
2
RFC: changing variable naming rules in LLVM codebase
This thread is not active for a while, but I'm still interested in seeing a change. Reading through this thread, looks like we can agree that we want to change the local variable naming scheme so that they start with a lowercase letter. Besides that, there were discussions about lower_case, camelCase, m_ prefix, and each argument seems as convincing as others. I'm not sure what is the
2015 Feb 03
2
[LLVMdev] OrcJIT in LLVM C bindings
Thanks, David. I'd be happy to add the bindings .. is there a general way we add them? Or do you just scrub the API and make sensible judgements to the API? On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 1:55 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I
2019 May 18
3
Bugzilla OrcJIT Tickets
Hello everyone A previous thread about OrcJIT brought up bug reports on Bugzilla. A quick search gives 20+ results: https://bugs.llvm.org/buglist.cgi?component=OrcJIT&list_id=162232&query_format=advanced&resolution=--- While some of them are obviously outdated (addModuleSet API cleanup [1]), others may actually be relevant again (Small code model? [2]). If you reported one of them,
2019 May 18
2
Bugzilla OrcJIT Tickets
Hi Stefan Thank you! In case, you missed in llvm-dev listing: you can find the proposal here : link. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1202EcXlWMQ8yxu5qD0b5fE0a_kihlcaPNpZo_Jk0YeQ/edit?usp=sharing> Thanks for working on summarising the Bugzilla tickets to track the recent changes in ORC this is really helpful. On Sat, 18 May 2019 at 21:33, Stefan Gränitz <stefan.graenitz at
2019 Jun 10
2
RFC: changing variable naming rules in LLVM codebase
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 6:27 PM Michael Platings <Michael.Platings at arm.com> wrote: > Hi Rui, > > > > As per the provisional plan [1] we’re still at step 1: improving git > blame. The status of this is that there are some fairly mature patches in > the Git project’s queue [2], and I’m hopeful that it will be accepted in > something close to its current form. >
2019 Jul 09
4
RFC: changing variable naming rules in LLVM codebase
This looks really great to me Rui, and I’m also pleased to see the positive comments on the review thread. Thank you for driving this forward! -Chris > On Jul 4, 2019, at 9:50 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I wrote a tool <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64123> to batch-rename variable names so that they are in camelCase, and I applied the
2019 Jul 09
2
RFC: changing variable naming rules in LLVM codebase
Hi Rui, Is your tool in a good state to be run on people's downstream repositories? It would be nice to be able to update variable names there too at the same time. James On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 at 08:24, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Thanks, Chris. > > Looks like everybody is at least mildly comfortable with my variable name > renaming change,