similar to: [RFC] Heterogeneous LLVM-IR Modules

[off topic] I'm not a fan of the "reply-to-list" default. Thanks for the feedback! More below. On 7/30/20 6:01 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev wrote: > On 28/07/2020 07:00, Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev wrote: >> TL;DR >> ----- >> >> Let's allow to merge to LLVM-IR modules for different targets (with >> compatible data layouts) into a single

Thanks for the reply! It sounds like LLVM IR is being considered for optimizations in OpenMP constructs. There seems to be plans regarding improvement of LLVM IR Framework for providing things required for OpenMP / flang(?) Are there any design considerations which contain pros and cons about using the MLIR vs LLVM IR for various OpenMP related optimizations/ transformations? The latest RFC [

On 7/30/20 10:01 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 15:09, Johannes Doerfert > <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote: >> At this point I ask myself if it wouldn't be better to make the target >> cpu, features, and other "hidden parameters" explicit in the module itself. >> (I suggested part of that recently anyway[0].) That way we

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Will Dietz <willdtz at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Oct 25, 2016, at 6:28 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Will Dietz <willdtz at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>

> On Oct 28, 2016, at 2:16 PM, Will Dietz <willdtz at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk <mailto:peter at pcc.me.uk>> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Will Dietz <willdtz at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev

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

[I removed all but the data layout question, that is an important topic] On 7/28/20 1:03 PM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > TL;DR >> ----- >> >> Let's allow to merge to LLVM-IR modules for different targets (with >> compatible data layouts) into a single LLVM-IR module to facilitate >> host-device code optimizations. >> > > I think the main question

On 7/30/20 8:48 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 13:59, Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> FWIW, I would expect that we split the module *before* the codegen stage >> such that the back end doesn't have to deal with heterogeneous models >> (right now). > Indeed. Even if the multiple targets are all supported

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Oct 25, 2016, at 6:28 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> As mentioned in my recent RFC entitled

Hi, I have few questions / concerns regarding the design of OpenMP dialect in MLIR that is currently being implemented, mainly for the f18 compiler. Below, I summarize the current state of various efforts in clang / f18 / MLIR / LLVM regarding this. Feel free to add to the list in case I have missed something. 1. [May 2019] An OpenMPIRBuilder in LLVM was proposed for flang and clang frontends.

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Oct 25, 2016, at 6:28 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > Hi all, > > As mentioned in my recent RFC entitled "RFC: a more detailed design for > ThinLTO + vcall CFI" I would like to introduce the ability for bitcode > files to contain multiple

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

On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 12:31 PM C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> > wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 5:02 AM C Bergström

Hey all, I'm working on adding interprocedural FunctionAttrs optimization ( http://llvm-cs.pcc.me.uk/lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionAttrs.cpp) to ThinLTO so it does something similar to what LTO is doing ( https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33648). I've hit a problem with how the FunctionAttrs optimization expects linkage types. In ThinLTO since the linkage type is set to External or

Hi Charles, On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: >> I'm working on adding interprocedural FunctionAttrs optimization >> (http://llvm-cs.pcc.me.uk/lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionAttrs.cpp) to ThinLTO >> so it does something similar to what LTO is doing >> (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33648). I've hit a problem

On 7/28/20 2:24 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 20:07, Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Long story short, I think host & device need to, and in practice do, >> agree on the data layout of the address space they use to communicate. > > You can design APIs that call functions into external hardware that

Hello, I have a data set containing categorical and ordinal factors, as well as sampling weights (i.e., survey weights reflecting unequal probabilities of selection). I want to fit a structural equation model with sem(). I have run sem() on weighted covariance matrices using advice from John Fox (see <http://tolstoy.newcastle.edu.au/R/e5/help/08/12/8773.html> and

The design objective is to make thinLTO mostly transparent to binutil tools to enable easy integration with any build system in the wild. 'Pass-through' mode with 'ld -r' instead of the partial LTO mode is another reason. David On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Eric Christopher

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote: > "ELF-wrapped bitcode" seems potentially controversial to me. > > What about ar, nm, and various ld implementations adds this requirement? > What about the LLVM implementations of these tools is lacking? > Sorry I can not parse your questions properly. Can you make it clearer? David