similar to: GSoC - Advanced Heuristics and Machine Learning

Awesome, thanks! As per your suggestion, I read the description of these two projects: Advanced Heuristics for Ordering Compiler Optimization Passes Machine learning and compiler optimizations: using inter-procedural analysis to select optimizations and they are amazing! Indeed, they are very close to my interest in autotuning. I didn't see them on the list before. If I choose to focus on

Hello! My name is Emanuel and I am an undergraduate student from Brazil (at the University of São Paulo) wanting to participate in this years GSoC on LLVM. Specifically, on the "Improve parallelism-aware analyses and optimizations" project. I currently do research on autotuning of LLVM IR optimization passes and I am sitting for a class about parallel computing, but I have been studying

Hi Rithik, I CC'd the 2 other mentors and hopefully you'll get answer. Sorry, but I don't know of any other way to help. :/ You may also try to contact them privately. Best, Stefanos Στις Τρί, 24 Μαρ 2020 στις 7:35 μ.μ., ο/η RITHIK SHARMA via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> έγραψε: > Ping! > I'm bit concern about the approaching deadline next week, some

Np, good luck! :) - Stefanos Στις Τρί, 24 Μαρ 2020 στις 8:55 μ.μ., ο/η RITHIK SHARMA < rithiksh02 at gmail.com> έγραψε: > Many thanks, Stefanos! I really appreciate your help :) I heard from > Whitney. > > Best, > Rithik > > On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 23:08, Stefanos Baziotis < > stefanos.baziotis at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Rithik, >> >> I

Greetings, I'm an LLVM newcomer interested in participating in the next GSoC under the project "Improve parallelism-aware analyses and optimizations". I've already read "Compiler Optimizations for OpenMP" and "Compiler Optimizations for Parallel Programs" both by Doerfert and Finkel. Also, I've watched their two LLVM meeting developers conferences

Hi Rithik, CodeMoverUtils is not aimed for only loop transformations, it can be used by any transformation which want to move code or check if code is safe to be moved. It can currently do both hoist and sink but require control flow equivalent between the original location and the intended to be moved location. I would like to keep the API decoupled from loop, so other transformation can use it.

Hi there!, As part of my application process to the next GSoC I'm working on the TODO in OpenMPOpt.cpp line 437:     // TODO: We should validate the declaration agains the types we expect.     Link: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/OpenMPOpt.cpp#L437 I have a question. When there is a mismatch in the types (return type or argument types) between

Hello, Following up on last week's LLVM-Dev meeting where we discussed MemorySSA related topics, I created the following google doc <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-uEEZfmRdPThZlctOq9eXlmUaSSAAi8oKxhrPY_lpjk/edit#> with some of the meeting notes and planning for future meetings. For those who participated, please feel free to add items I may have missed into the document and cc

Hi Raphael, Thanks for the clarification. I note that in this case, I also think that Benson should preferably find a different project as that would probably be better for everybody. Best, Stefanos Baziotis On Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 12:24 Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <teemperor at gmail.com> wrote: > Just to clarify my point about the “asking if there is already another > student

On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 6:34 PM Stefanos Baziotis < stefanos.baziotis at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Craig, > > > Adding a nuw to the add -8 is incorrect. > Yeah, I didn't mean to say it was correct. It was just an observation that > with nuw the optimization was happened and I asked if someone thought it > was somehow connected. > > > From the perspective of the

Hi to both, > I'm not applying for GSoC but that's a hint if other students are applying to help them get started. Yes I agree, thanks for bringing up the topic. > On a more serious note, how do I know what issue can be solved in a reasonable amount of time/how do I search for one? Well, usually you don't. If you're lucky, someone will be able to provide you with some

Hi Hal, > Documentation updates should also be reviewed. Of course, I meant that I'll open a patch in Phabricator. :) I didn't know about code-review patch, thanks. I'll defer the update of developer policy until the other patch is committed so we can have a clearer picture. Kind regards, Stefanos Στις Κυρ, 1 Μαρ 2020 στις 6:17 μ.μ., ο/η Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov>

Adding a nuw to the add -8 is incorrect. From the perspective of the unsigned math, -8 is treated a very large positive number. The input to the add is [8,13) and adding a large positive number to it wraps around past 0. So that is guaranteed unsigned wrap. On the other hand, a sub nuw 8 would be correct. ~Craig On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 3:27 PM Stefanos Baziotis via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at

Hi Nick, What you said makes sense, but it's not called a call graph. :) You're essentially referring to what LoopInfo does which makes sense, but as I mentioned earlier, this is already done in the LoopInfo. Now, how much one will be able to use it in a LoopNestPass is another issue, which is certainly something that mentors could help you with. Best, Stefanos Στις Τρί, 17 Μαρ 2020

Hi Michael, Thanks for the reply. I've seen but have not used it. FWIW, the problem is not how to generate the runtime checks (although it'd be good if we can get it for free), but how to clean up the SCEVs. Does PSE do that ? Cheers, Stefanos Στις Δευ, 21 Σεπ 2020 στις 11:59 π.μ., ο/η Michael Kruse < llvmdev at meinersbur.de> έγραψε: > Have you looked into

> > IMHO, you do. :) Lol, you have too much faith in me. On a more serious note, how do I know what issue can be solved in a reasonable amount of time/how do I search for one? > Please feel free to email me or Ettore if you encounter any blockers, or > have further questions. Hi Whitney, thanks for the video link and info. I was a bit busy today, but I will work tomorrow and get

Hi everyone, > I probably do not have the time to get a patch through. IMHO, you do. :) First of all, @Benson sorry but I'm not at all familiar with LLDB so I can't help there. Other than that, I'll also disappoint you both probably because I'm not that familiar with the creation of passes and the problem at hand. I'll try to help as I can. > Is there a specific

> On Apr 5, 2020, at 22:20, Stefanos Baziotis <stefanos.baziotis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Any idea about how the compiler could remove the lshr and use a add -16? > Actually, I just figured that doing this test is like solving this: > > 8 <= x/2 <= 13 > 16 <= x <= 26 > 0 <= x - 16 <= 10 => 0 <= x < 11 > The left part is know since

> Yes that's correct. Well, now that I saw the LoopNestAnalysis* files, they try to do sth similar. So, I hope it helped. > My idea was similar but using the call graph directly Personally I don't see how the call graph can help you, since well... it's a call graph. :) You care about loops in a specific function. What can help you is the Control-Flow graph, which is basically

Hi, > I think the IR in both of your examples makes things harder for the compiler than expected from the original C source. Note that both versions are from clang with -O2. The first is with version 9.0 and the second is with the trunk. > but in the branch only %0 is used. Sinking the lshr too early made the analysis harder. Yes, exactly! That's what I figured too. > The version