similar to: Project :Adding new compiler optimization Passes to Codegen

Here is an update to the project ideas list for GSoC/EVoC. If there are no complains within the next few days, I just go ahead and add them to the wiki page. Many thanks for reviewing and suggesting changes! Instruction Scheduler Difficulty: Difficult Skills Required: C++ Useful skills: Compilers Hardware/Software required: NVIDIA Fermi or later Where to ask questions: nouveau at

On 15/10/17 22:13, Karol Herbst wrote: > Hi everybody, > > currently on the Xorg Wiki page [1] there are only three projects > ideas, two being quite similiar: > 1. Instruction scheduling > 2. Maxwell Video Accel Decoding > 3. Kepler Video Accel Encoding > and also the reference to our Trello board. > > Because I don't expect any student interested in a

Hi everybody, currently on the Xorg Wiki page [1] there are only three projects ideas, two being quite similiar: 1. Instruction scheduling 2. Maxwell Video Accel Decoding 3. Kepler Video Accel Encoding and also the reference to our Trello board. Because I don't expect any student interested in a GSoC/EVoC project to read our wiki or trello, I am sure to attract more students, we should give

Hello Everyone, Greetings! I hope you are doing well. I am Ojus, a final-year IT student. Recently, I discovered EVoC as an open-source enthusiast, and I'm deeply interested in participating in this program. However, I am new to this and am looking for a mentor to guide me through EVoC for a project related to nouveau. I would appreciate any ideas or projects for this program, as I am open

On 11/06/2014 13:59, Roy Spliet wrote: > Dear Mr. Dew, > > I hereby wish to propose the X.org EVoC project "REclock - > Reverse-engineer and implement NVA3/5/8 Voltage- and Frequency Scaling > in Nouveau" for which I am willing to participate, and apply for the > associated funding. Full details below or on > http://nouveau.spliet.org/evoc.html . For any further

Le mar. 3 avr. 2018 à 12:47, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> a écrit : > All, > A recent commit, D43040/r324557, changed the behavior of the gold plugin > when compiling with LTO. The change now causes the codegen optimization > level to default to CodeGenOpt::Default (i.e., -O2) rather than use the > LTO optimization level. The argument was made that the LTO

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 12:47 PM via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > All, > A recent commit, D43040/r324557, changed the behavior of the gold plugin > when compiling with LTO. The change now causes the codegen optimization > level to default to CodeGenOpt::Default (i.e., -O2) rather than use the > LTO optimization level. The argument was made that the LTO

Hi Martin, I think this is another example of why we might consider having such function level attributes.. yes.  Chad On 4/4/2018 11:42 AM, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev wrote: > > Sorry, my reply “to all” left out LLVM-Dev > > *From:*Martin J. O'Riordan [mailto:MartinO at theheart.ie] > *Sent:* 04 April 2018 16:41 > *To:* 'David Blaikie' <dblaikie at

Sorry, my reply “to all” left out LLVM-Dev From: Martin J. O'Riordan [mailto:MartinO at theheart.ie] Sent: 04 April 2018 16:41 To: 'David Blaikie' <dblaikie at gmail.com>; 'mcrosier at codeaurora.org' <mcrosier at codeaurora.org>; 'Chandler Carruth' <chandlerc at gmail.com>; 'Eric Christopher' <echristo at gmail.com> Subject: RE:

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018, 1:56 PM Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 8:44 AM, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > wrote: > >> On 2018-04-04 22:00, Mehdi AMINI wrote: >> >>> Le mar. 3 avr. 2018 à 12:47, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> a >>> écrit : >>>

All, A recent commit, D43040/r324557, changed the behavior of the gold plugin when compiling with LTO. The change now causes the codegen optimization level to default to CodeGenOpt::Default (i.e., -O2) rather than use the LTO optimization level. The argument was made that the LTO optimization level should control the amount of cross-module optimizations done by LTO, but it should not

Hi, I am a newbie in LLVM. I am very impressed with this forum and appreciate your help and time. I am trying to include llvm IR parser in my codebase, the way I wanna do is generate llvm's shared object (.so) file and use it in my project. So far I haven't been able to generate correct .so's. When I build a debug build with gmake (have llvm and clang in my sandbox), I get the

Hello llvmer: I am develop new registerb allocation for my study . my register allocation do not depend on live variable . I add an option which will be cheked whether the pass should be add or not in "addOptimizeRegalloc ,". But live variable analysis still appeare After debug,I'm sure that live variable is not add during addPass stage . FYI ,I disable the phiEliminate,live

The functions that I placed in ScalarTargetTransformInfo are functions what were used by LSR and LowerInvoke. getJumpSize and getJumpAlignment are used by LowerInvoke. Do you suggest that I remove them from TargetLowering and keep them in ScalarTargetTransformInfo ? Thanks, Nadav On Oct 9, 2012, at 5:47 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Nadav, > > The

Hi all! I would like to know if it's possible to tell LLVM which optimizations to apply during "Scheduling Formation" (SF) and "Late Machine Code Optimizations" (LMCO). Right now, I add 1 pass to LMCO via addPassesToEmitFile, the one that emits the file, that's it. I was wondering if there is a similar list of available passes for SF and LMCO like there is for IR

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 8:44 AM, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 2018-04-04 22:00, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > >> Le mar. 3 avr. 2018 à 12:47, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> a >> écrit : >> >> All, >>> A recent commit, D43040/r324557, changed the behavior of the gold >>> plugin >>> when compiling with

On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 7:50 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: > On 4/6/12 12:50 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > > I'd like some similar work to be done, although I view it a bit > differently. > This might be a separate analysis pass that knows nothing about ASAN or > SAFECode > and appends metadata nodes to memory access instructions saying things

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82714 --- Comment #10 from Bruno <bonbons at sysophe.eu> --- (In reply to Bruno from comment #9) > Created attachment 114735 [details] > 4.0-rc6 dmesg of nouveau loading (debug, runpm=0) The first BUG happens in evo_wait() at line 420 of nv50_display.c Seems like dmac->ptr[put] is bad. 413: evo_wait(void *evoc, int nr) 414: { 415:

On 2/7/13 5:49 AM, marwayusuf at feng.bu.edu.eg wrote: > Dear All > in this - quite old - message > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-January/037496.html > I followed all the steps except the last one, as I don't think my pass depends on anything else, and I didn't fully understand it. > And I tried to rebuild the llvm to make it take my pass into account. I

This is a reminder. Please distribute this email. Data on both agile and plan-driven projects are welcome. To Whom It May Concern, My name is Donald Buresh, and I am a Ph.D. student at Northcentral University located in Prescott Valley, Arizona. The reason that I am writing to you is because I would like you to participate in an internet survey for my dissertation. The topic of my