similar to: [GSoC '20 Project Interest] - Improve MergeFunctions to incorporate MergeSimilarFunction patches and ThinLTO Support

Hi Vishal, Ruijie, Thanks for your interest in the project. To get started, the first task would be to merge the 5 patches on top of trunk llvm. The list of patches are listed in the project description: http://llvm.org/OpenProjects.html#llvm_mergesim Please create an account in llvm phabricator (reviews.llvm.org) if you haven't already, and put your patches there. Let me know if you have

Hello Tobias, Thank you for the suggestion! Aditya also mentioned this. I will look into it. Best regards, Ruijie Ruijie Fang Email: ruijief at princeton.edu On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 12:48 PM Tobias Hieta <tobias at plexapp.com> wrote: > Hello Ruijie, > > One other workload that would be interesting to test might be clang > itself. Building clang with PGO information is a

Hi Teresa, Thank you for your reply! I discussed this with Aditya and Rodrigo today about this. We will always have PGO turned on for our benchmark, (i.e. we assume the profiling information is always available). In terms of the workload we supply to PGO: For postgresql, I suggested we use the "pgbench" benchmark, a TPC-B-based SQL benchmark for postgres, to supply profiling information

Hello, I am Ruijie Fang, a GSoC student working on "Improve hot cold splitting to aggressively outline small blocks." Over the course of last week, I met with my mentor and co-mentor, Aditya Kumar, and Rodrigo Rocha, and we made a preliminary plan on improving the existing hot/cold splitting pass in LLVM through identifying patterns of cold blocks in real-world workloads via block

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:51 PM aditya kumar <hiraditya at gmail.com> wrote: > Glad to hear that there is an interest in a function splitting pass. There > are advantages to splitting functions at different stages as you've already > noted. > Right -- with slightly different objectives. Machine Function Splitting Pass's main focus is on performance improvement. > -

Hi all, here is my situation In my experiment, I expose 10 subjects to 24 different conditions of stimuli. Each condition is exposed to the same subject 3x. This would make each subject have 24x3=72 data points. All the subjects combined would have 72x10=720 data points with each condition having 30 datapoints. To find the grand average of each condition, I find the average of all the

Hi Stepan, After discovering several bugs in ArgumentPromotion and DeadArgumentElimination where llvm::Functions were replaced with similar functions (with the same name) to transform their type in some way, I started looking at all calls to llvm::Function::takeName to see if there were any other debug info quality bugs in similar callers. One such caller is MergeFunctions, and I don't see

On 27 October 2013 11:30, Stepan Dyatkovskiy <stpworld at narod.ru> wrote: > Hi Nick. > > Can you help me sort some things out in MergeFucntions pass. While I was > working on MergeFunctions pass I got several questions. I hardly tried to > find all the answers by myself, but there are still two questions without > answer. > > It is about merging functions itself

Hi Nick. Can you help me sort some things out in MergeFucntions pass. While I was working on MergeFunctions pass I got several questions. I hardly tried to find all the answers by myself, but there are still two questions without answer. It is about merging functions itself (not comparing). First question is: Why sometimes we use RAUW and sometimes replaceDirectCallers. Would you help me

Hi David, After merging we always remove body of "G" (function we want to merge with "existing" one). In case with "writeThunk" we could add such info for "G", but it would be just a single string: reference to first string of "G". Ideal way here, is to merge debug information itself, and provide "F" with information for "G"

Hi Tobias, > I can't really see a way to combine our approach with your patch. What > are your thoughts? I think it is possible. Even more - we need to combine our efforts, in order to bring this pass into real live. I'have read your presentation file, and unfortunately read your patch only a little. How exactly you scan functions on 2nd stage? Could you explain the algorithm in

Hi all, I propose simple improvement for MergeFunctions pass, that reduced its complexity from O(N^2) to O(log(N)), where N is number of functions in module. The idea, is to replace the result of comparison from "bool" to "-1,0,1". In another words: define order relation on functions set. To be sure, that functions could be comparable that way, we have to prove that order

Hi Stepan, This looks interesting! Some high-level comments: - Please post the patch untarred next time. Also, I'm not sure if it's typical to provide supporting documents in .doc format; while many of us probably have access to Word, a more portable and email-friendly format (like text, markdown or rst) is probably better. - Have you profiled this? What's the speedup? I

On 2014 Jan 22, at 07:35, Stepan Dyatkovskiy <stpworld at narod.ru> wrote: > Hi Raul and Duncan, > > Duncan, > Thank you for review. I hope to present fixed patch tomorrow. > > First, I would like to show few performance results: > > command: "time opt -mergefunc <test>" > > File: tramp3d-v4.ll, 12963 functions > Current

Hi all, Please find the updated patch in attachment: * Added some comments. * Fixed some typos. -Stepan Nick Lewycky wrote: > On 30 January 2014 01:27, Stepan Dyatkovskiy <stpworld at narod.ru > <mailto:stpworld at narod.ru>> wrote: > > Hello Sean and Tobias, > > Sean, > Thank you. Could you describe Nick's ideas in few words or give me >

Hi all, I have data collected from a survey administered on a subset of the population. I also have the population proportions of variables such as gender, race and housing type. I would like to combine the weights from each separate cross tab (of gender, race and housing type) such that the weighted proportions of my survey data matches that of the population. I have tried the following:

Hi all, hope someone can help me out with this. Background Introduction I have a data set consisting of data collected from a questionnaire that I wish to validate. I have chosen to use confirmatory factor analysis to analyse this data set. Instrument The instrument consists of 11 subscales. There is a total of 68 items in the 11 subscales. Each item is scored on an integer scale between 1 to 4.

Hi all, Previous patch has been split onto series of small changes. On each stage (after each patch) MergeFunctions pass is compilable and stable. Please find patches in attachment for review. To apply all patches at once, use "apply-patches.sh" script as follows: 0. Place "apply-patches.sh" in same directory with patches. 1. cd <llvm-sources-dir> 2. "bash

Hi all, I have a large dataset that has >10k entries. The dataset is stored in a dataframe with the headers: SubID Condition1 Condition2 Result1 Result2 There are multiple entries for a given SubID(Subject ID). Condition 1 has 3 levels and condition2 has 2 levels (therefore there are 6 possible combinations all together e.g. Cond1 Level1 x Cond2 Level 1 etc.) and i need to compute for 1. The

Hi Nick, I tried to rework changes as you requested. One of patches (0004 with extra assertions) has been removed. > + bool isEquivalentType(Type *Ty1, Type *Ty2) const { > + return cmpType(Ty1, Ty2) == 0; > + } > > Why do we still need isEquivalentType? Can we nuke this? Yup. After applying all the patches isEquivalentType will be totally replaced with cmpType. All