similar to: Use Global ISel or SelectionDAG

Hi, I've been experimenting with global isel over the last few weeks and it is such a vast improvement over the SelectionDAG for the AMDGPU target that I would really like to begin using it as soon as possible. Given the lack of a replacement for SelectionDAG's legalizer / combiner, and how much work this will be to implement, I think the fastest path to doing this would be to run some

> On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de> wrote: > > >> On Jan 22, 2016, at 2:36 PM, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I would like your opinions on the contract we have between the LLVM IR and the backends. >> >> >> * Context * >> >>

Since version 1.0 I experience strange problems with dovecot. At the moment I have beta 7 installed. I use FreeBSD 6.0. * Pop3 works * Imap works, but only when i telnet to localhost * In all other cases I can't connect to the server. Tried with squirrelmail, uebimau and thunderbird. Squirrelmail after a long time waiting: "ERROR: Connection dropped by IMAP server."

Hi, I would like your opinions on the contract we have between the LLVM IR and the backends. * Context * Right now, the backends are supposed to be able to perform instruction selection on any valid LLVM IR. Although this is *not* something I want to change for GlobalISel, I thought I brought that up on the mailing list to discuss the implications. In particular, in the past, some people

I have been working on improvements to TableGen's DAG Isel matcher backend. This has led me to thinking about ways to speed up the compile-time interpreter of the instruction selection matcher table. Is this worth my time, given Fast Isel and the upcoming Global Isel selector?

> On Jan 22, 2016, at 4:10 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> >> To: "Matthias Braun" <matze at braunis.de <mailto:matze at braunis.de>> >> Cc: "llvm-dev"

Hi Leslie, On 20 December 2017 at 10:51, Leslie Zhai via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Sorry, I am apprentice of lowRISC, and meet new bug when porting GlobalISel > to RISCV target > https://github.com/xiangzhai/llvm/commit/b3f91ea54d9fee0ef7e73a32c6b8456bbe252811 > > > In file included from >

Are you talking about the type checking done in CodeGenDAGPatterns.cpp? Is it easy to post an example? At 11/18/2020 01:55 PM, Thomas Lively wrote: >Hi Paul, > >I think this would be time well spent. At least in the WebAssembly backend, the vast majority of our ISel work is still done with DAG ISel. I know this is different from the performance work you have in mind, but one of my

Hey, I just read another post about calling R from C. Someone on stackoverflow (DWin makes me suspect its David W.?) referenced this: http://www.math.univ-montp2.fr/~pudlo/R_files/call_R.pdf Which made me think: Why is a loop in R bad, but in C not? And where exactly does looping cost the most? I wrote a piece of code for my bachelor's thesis where I loop from 1 to 500, and estimate a

Given that I'm only somewhat up-to-speed on the DAG ISel scheme and not much at all on the Global ISel scheme, I'm tempted to work on the former and then the latter. So I'll look at the CodeGenDAGPatterns messages first. Then I will take a look at Global ISel. Matt: Can you suggest one or two things about Global ISel that could use some work? I won't get to it quickly, but it will

All, This year I am very interested in participating in the Google Summer of Code with a LLVM project. The main reason is that I am starting a Bachelor's Thesis about compilers that will target directly LLVM. (Note that I would like to continue beyond Bachelor) The project that me and my advisor have chosen is about compiler optimizations for GPGPU. Although I have seen some proposals for

> On 2 May 2017, at 8:48 am, Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com> wrote: > You would probably need to write a new tablegen backend to generate > instruction tables that would be used outside of LLVM. I think I need to write one anyway because I need to generate lots of tables other than the instruction table (there are no registers and therefore no register table), at least one

On 21 September 2012 09:51, Ralf Karrenberg <Chareos at gmx.de> wrote: > Hi, > > Simon Moll (in CC) has written a decompiler for LLVM in his Bachelor's > Thesis here at Saarland University. The thesis is titled "Decompilation of > LLVM IR" and can be found here: > http://www.cdl.uni-saarland.de/publications/ > > The library he implemented is called

Hi, I know most compilers go from AST to CFG. I am writing a decompiler, so I was wondering if anyone knew of any documents describing how best to get from CFG to AST. The decompiler project is open source. https://github.com/jcdutton/libbeauty The decompiler already contains a disassembler and a virtual machine resulting in an annotated CFG. It uses information gained from using a virtual

Hi, Simon Moll (in CC) has written a decompiler for LLVM in his Bachelor's Thesis here at Saarland University. The thesis is titled "Decompilation of LLVM IR" and can be found here: http://www.cdl.uni-saarland.de/publications/ The library he implemented is called "Axtor" (for "AST Extractor") and has been used primarily to generate OpenCL code from LLVM. In

Hey guys, Does anyone has an idea for what one can do for a bachelor''s thesis on Ruby on Rails? Possibly focusing on design patterns/benchmarking it against J2EE and stuff like this? Will be eternally grateful if anyone can contribute any idea! Regards Steve _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org

On 10 May 2014, at 18:14, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: >> The easiest solution would be to extend the cmpxchg instruction with a >> weak variant. It is then trivial to map load, modify, weak-cmpxchg to >> load-linked, modify, store-conditional (that is what weak cmpxchg was >> intended for in the C[++]11 memory model). > > That would

Hi all, Now, four backends (if I am counting right: X86, ARM, AArch64, AMDGPU) are working on bringing-up GlobalISel, I’d like to switch the default of the LLVM_BUILD_GLOBAL_ISEL variable in CMake, such that the framework gets built by default. ** Impact of Flipping the Switch ** * Upsides * For people developing on GlobalISel, it will: - Simplify the CMake command to type :) - Build/Test

Hi Michael, > On Jan 13, 2017, at 6:38 PM, Michael Kuperstein <mkuper at google.com> wrote: > > As a person not developing on GlobalISel, I can already play with it by setting the flag. ;-) > > The main (and huge) benefit I see is that it will get tested by default. I agree. > So, I think it's mainly a question of maturity - if my (non-GlobalISel) change breaks

Hi all, As part of my bachelor's thesis I'm trying to implement a new LLVM-based back end for the OCaml compiler. Currently I have a problem with LLVM's interface to the OCaml garbage collector. When I try to compile the attached program using llc I get the following stack dump: 0 llc 0x00000000016611de 1 llc 0x00000000016616aa 2 libpthread.so.0