Displaying 20 results from an estimated 10000 matches similar to: "Multi-Threading Compilers"
2020 Feb 28
5
Multi-Threading Compilers
On 2/28/20 12:19 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> Hi Nicholas,
>
> You might want to check out MLIR: its pass manager is already automatically and implicitly multithreaded.
>
> -Chris
Chris,
I was aware that LLVM was moving to MLIR at some point due to this. I've
curious as
to how MLIR deals with IPO as that's the problem I was running into.
Even if you have
pipelines what
2020 Feb 28
3
Multi-Threading Compilers
On 2/28/20 12:56 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2020, at 9:44 PM, Nicholas Krause <xerofoify at gmail.com
> <mailto:xerofoify at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> On 2/28/20 12:19 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>> Hi Nicholas,
>>>
>>> You might want to check out MLIR: its pass manager is already
>>> automatically and implicitly multithreaded.
2020 Mar 01
5
Multi-Threading Compilers
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 4:00 PM Nicholas Krause <xerofoify at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/29/20 6:17 PM, River Riddle via llvm-dev wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:25 PM David Blaikie via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:19 PM Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org>
>>
2020 Mar 01
2
Multi-Threading Compilers
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 5:14 PM Nicholas Krause via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/29/20 7:23 PM, River Riddle wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 4:00 PM Nicholas Krause <xerofoify at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 2/29/20 6:17 PM, River Riddle via llvm-dev wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat,
2020 Feb 29
2
Multi-Threading Compilers
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:25 PM David Blaikie via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:19 PM Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 29, 2020, at 2:08 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've
>>> curious as
>>> to how MLIR deals with IPO as that's
2020 Feb 29
3
Multi-Threading Compilers
On Feb 29, 2020, at 2:08 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've
> curious as
> to how MLIR deals with IPO as that's the problem I was running into.
>
> FWIW I believe LLVM's new pass manager (NPM) was designed with parallelism and the ability to support this situation (that MLIR doesn't? Or doesn't to the degree/way in which the NPM
2020 Mar 18
2
Multi-Threading Compilers
On 3/3/20 8:37 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2020, at 6:03 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org
> <mailto:clattner at nondot.org>> wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Johannes Doerfert
>> <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com <mailto:johannesdoerfert at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> On 02/28, Nicholas Krause via llvm-dev wrote:
2020 Feb 29
2
Multi-Threading Compilers
On Feb 28, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/28, Nicholas Krause via llvm-dev wrote:
>> Anyhow what is the status and what parts are we planning to move to
>> MLIR in LLVM/Clang. I've not seen any discussion on that other than
>> starting to plan for it.
>
> As far as I know, there is no
2020 Mar 19
3
Multi-Threading Compilers
On 3/18/20 9:49 AM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 7:23 AM Nicholas Krause via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> On 3/3/20 8:37 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2020, at 6:03 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at
2020 Mar 21
3
Multi-Threading Compilers
> On Mar 20, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Nicholas Krause <xerofoify at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The problem isn’t constants or functions themselves, it is that they are instances of llvm::Value. Everything that walks a use/def list would have to run code that checks for this, and every call to inst->setOperand() would have to do locking or conditional locking. This would be
2020 Mar 25
4
Multi-Threading Compilers
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 8:52 AM Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> wrote:
> I think the solution space for the value/use-list issue might be larger
> than what was mentioned so far.
>
>
> Some random thoughts:
>
> If no pass ever walks the use list of a constant, except globals which
> we could handle differently, we could get rid of their use-list or
>
2020 Mar 26
2
Multi-Threading Compilers
> On Mar 25, 2020, at 5:14 PM, Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> wrote:
>
>>> Let's assume you
>>> walk the uses and we "removed" the use list so there are none, what does
>>> that mean. I'd say, nothing much. If you inspect the Value and see it's
>>> a Constant you have to assume it has Aliases that denote the same
2020 Mar 20
2
Multi-Threading Compilers
> On Mar 19, 2020, at 2:31 PM, Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think addressing this issue first makes sense. I would however start
> by determining the actual impact of different design choices here. I
> mean, do we know locks will be heavily contented? If I had to guess I'd
> say most passes will not create or modify functions nor add
2020 Mar 26
2
Multi-Threading Compilers
> On Mar 26, 2020, at 8:26 AM, Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> wrote:
>
> On 3/26/20 5:53 AM, Florian Hahn wrote:
>>> It also doesn't solve the problem of Functions themselves -- those are
>>> also GlobalValues…
>>
>>
>> I am not sure why not. Function passes should only rely on the information at the callsite & from the
2016 Jul 04
2
LLVM Cauldron 2016 (Sep 8th, Hebden Bridge, UK) registration and call for papers now open
We are pleased to announce the first LLVM Cauldron, to be held on Thursday
September 8th 2016 in Hebden Bridge, UK. This is the day before the GNU Tools
Cauldron being held at the same venue, so we hope to take advantage of the high
concentration of compiler enthusiasts and to encourage lots of
cross-pollination between communities.
This will be a one-day conference with a single talks track and
2020 Mar 26
4
Multi-Threading Compilers
> On Mar 26, 2020, at 10:19, Nicolai Hähnle via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 5:26 PM Florian Hahn <florian_hahn at apple.com> wrote:
>> I think one important observation is that most passes currently probably do not really care too much about use lists of various constants, beyond the bookkeeping required to maintain them.
2016 Aug 20
2
Cambridge LLVM Social, Sep 6th
The next Cambridge Social will be pushed a bit further into September,
because of the holidays and the LLVM Cauldron. It'd be nice to welcome
international LLVMers on the cauldron week.
But that also forces the day of the week to be on a Tuesday. With the
Cauldron in Hebden Bridge, people will be traveling on Wednesday
evening and there would be no point in holding the social then.
So, the
2015 Dec 12
2
Some patches from mageia
Gene Cumm wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Ady via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Sebastian Herbszt <herbszt at gmx.de> wrote:
> >> > Gene Cumm wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Erwan Velu via Syslinux
> >> >> <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote:
>
2019 Nov 15
2
C++11 Move for LLVM/Clang
Greetings all,
I've been working more on the gcc side with multi-threading it and
researching that. However in
my time there it seems that both projects can really take advantage of
certain C++11 features,
most notably std::move, r values, auto and perhaps stronger
pointer/floating types.
It seems that clang/LLVM are in the same boat and it would help mostly
with IR passes or
backends
2011 May 17
4
Multi-Threading?
I have a backup server now restoring 6TB of data to a client machine. This has been going on for four days now, and no sign of getting close to completion.
The connexion is Gb enet end-to-end, and is running at only 40Mb/s. It has far more capacity than that. The only limiting factor I can see is on the backup server one core of the CPU is running 100% rsync. Clearly rsync is not