similar to: [LLVMdev] Notice for out-of-tree maintainer: RegisterScheduler::setDefault removed

As you may have noticed, I have been working on a fast register allocator in the last week. The new allocator is intended to replace the local allocator for debug builds. Both allocators use a local allocation strategy. Each basic block is scanned from top to bottom, and virtual registers are assigned to physical registers as they appear. There are no live registers between blocks. Everything is

Sorry for responding to my own message but I would really appreciate some help with this. Looking through the documentation again this morning I noticed that setSchedulingPreference is a protected method of LLVMTargetLowering, so it looks like it's not something I can call directly anyway. Furthermore it's only called from one place with a hard-coded value for any particular

I am running 1.3.1 on a Windows (NT 4.0) machine. I've fit a nonlinear model intended to predict crop yield from nutrient information, and want to use the profile function. If I type say, profile(simparj.fm) I get the following error message: "Error in prof$getProfile(): number of iterations exceeded maximum of 5.25515e-308" I used the profiler function to profile simparj,fm step

Hi Andrew, On 04/19/10 14:27, Andrew Friedley wrote: > Sorry for responding to my own message but I would really appreciate > some help with this. > > Looking through the documentation again this morning I noticed that > setSchedulingPreference is a protected method of LLVMTargetLowering, so > it looks like it's not something I can call directly anyway. > Furthermore

Sanjiv Gupta wrote: > On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 11:33 -0400, Andrew Friedley wrote: >> I've found that I need to set the -pre-RA-sched parameter when using >> tools like llc to get the kind of instruction scheduling I want. >> >> However I'm normally generating and running code on the fly using the >> JIT, and can't figure out how to set the -pre-RA-sched

On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 11:33 -0400, Andrew Friedley wrote: > I've found that I need to set the -pre-RA-sched parameter when using > tools like llc to get the kind of instruction scheduling I want. > > However I'm normally generating and running code on the fly using the > JIT, and can't figure out how to set the -pre-RA-sched option anywhere > other than on the

Changes since last time: - split auto-generated code in to c and h files - un-break the build system - fix ocaml binding due to libxl API change - lot''s of tidy-ups too numerous to mention Please consider and apply :) -----8<--------------------------------------------------------------- Introduce python binding for libxl. The binding is not yet complete but list_domains,

I'm a taking a compiler course and I'm supposed to implement a scheduler for the LLVM compiler and comapre its persformance to the existing one used by LLVM-gcc. I need some help understanding what is really happening in LLVM-gcc. In CodeGen/SelectionDAG/ I can see four different Schedulers, which one is used by LLVM? Can you give a hint on where/how to add a new scheduler and test

Thanks for the updates! Minor comments: + if (!Accuracy) + // If it's not a floating point number then it must be 'fast'. + return HUGE_VALF; Can we add an assert instead of a comment? It's just as documenting and will catch any goofs. + // If it's not a floating point number then it must be 'fast'. + return !isa<ConstantFP>(MD->getOperand(0));

I have subclassed a FXDialogBox and put a FXText in it for displaying a hex dump in my application. I want to change the font to a courier type font since it''s a hex dump. When do the following it works as expected: # A little dialog box to use in our tests class FXTextDialog < FXDialogBox def initialize(owner) # Invoke base class initialize function first super(owner,

> On Dec 17, 2008, at 4:53 AM, Mark Shannon wrote: >> Choosing the fast selector does speed code-generation by almost >> double, >> when using llc, but the reduction in final code speed is obviously a >> downside. > [...] >> Since my toolkit generates an interpreter, I am able to just compile >> hotspots, so final speed of compiled code is quite

Hi Chandler, > Minor comments: > + if (!Accuracy) > + // If it's not a floating point number then it must be 'fast'. > + return HUGE_VALF; > > Can we add an assert instead of a comment? It's just as documenting and will > catch any goofs. Done. > > + // If it's not a floating point number then it must be 'fast'. > + return

On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 21:00 -0700, Andrew Trick wrote: > On Oct 25, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > > Is there documentation somewhere for the bottom-up scheduling? I'm > > trying to figure out what changes are necessary in order to support it > > in the PPC backend. > > > > Thanks in advance, > > Hal > > > > On Thu, 2011-10-20 at

On Oct 25, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > Is there documentation somewhere for the bottom-up scheduling? I'm > trying to figure out what changes are necessary in order to support it > in the PPC backend. > > Thanks in advance, > Hal > > On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 10:21 -0700, Evan Cheng wrote: >> >> On Oct 19, 2011, at 7:29 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at

While looking at why some generated code for SPARC was poor, I ran into the fact that the MachineScheduler is not yet enabled by default -- it's opt in for each target. Having a bunch of deprecatedish code around was a bit confusing for newbie me. So, I suggested on IRC that perhaps it's been long enough by now that any target that hasn't switched over probably isn't actually

On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 13:27 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 21:00 -0700, Andrew Trick wrote: > > On Oct 25, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > > > Is there documentation somewhere for the bottom-up scheduling? I'm > > > trying to figure out what changes are necessary in order to support it > > > in the PPC backend. > > > >

On Sep 17, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Ghassan Shobaki wrote: > Hi, > > I am currently writing a paper documenting a research project that we have done on pre-allocation instruction scheduling to balance ILP and register pressure. In the paper we compare the pre-allocation scheduler that we have developed to LLVM's default schedulers for two targets: x86-64 and x86-32. We would like to

> On Mar 23, 2016, at 5:54 PM, Matthias Braun via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Let's move this to llvm-dev. I should describe my goals/motivation for the work I have been putting into the llvm-testsuite lately. This is how I see the llvm-test-suite today: > > - We provide a familiar cmake build system so people have a known environment to tweak

Okay, I was intrigued, tried it and it turns out you can add make a patch for basic google benchmark support in 40 minutes: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18428 <http://reviews.llvm.org/D18428> So there is a base now if someone wants to write benchmarks for it in the future. - Matthias > On Mar 23, 2016, at 6:00 PM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >

Let's move this to llvm-dev. I should describe my goals/motivation for the work I have been putting into the llvm-testsuite lately. This is how I see the llvm-test-suite today: - We provide a familiar cmake build system so people have a known environment to tweak compilation flags. - Together with the benchmark executable we build a .test file that describes how to invoke the benchmark and