similar to: Musings on the TableGen -emit-dag-isel backend

I wouldn't want to be too hasty about simply removing the relaxation algorithm. The size and speed of the compiler affects all users, but the time to compile the compiler "only" affects us compiler developers. And I speak as a developer who is heavily affected by the time to compile the AMDGPU backend. One off-the-cuff idea (I haven't even looked at the code yet): could we pass

This is great! Thanks Paul! I think that the 9x reduction in compile-time is well worth the 4% size increase. TableGen's run-time has been a sore point and a source of complaints for quite some time. -- Krzysztof Parzyszek kparzysz at quicinc.com AI tools development -----Original Message----- From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Paul C.

This is the size of the table, not the size of the overall binary, right? I would imagine that a 4% growth in the size of the table is a substantially smaller growth in the total executable size of, say, clang. If the overall growth is minuscule (say, under 1%), then this seems like the clear path forward. I’m also optimistic that we might be able to find other ways to shrink the tables to make

On 23.11.2012, at 15:12, john skaller <skaller at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > On 23/11/2012, at 5:46 PM, Sean Silva wrote: > >> Adding LLVMdev, since this is intimately related to the optimization passes. >> >>> I think this is roughly because some function level optimisations are >>> worse than O(N) in the number of instructions. >>

Thanks, that was a really helpful suggestion. If you're curious- here are some of the high cost areas: ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------=== DWARF Emission ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------=== Total Execution Time: 2.0117 seconds (2.0185 wall clock) ---User Time---

Dear all, Attached notunrolled.ll is a module containing reduction kernel. What I'm trying to do is to unroll it in such way, that partial reduction on unrolled iterations would be performed on register, and then stored to memory only once. Currently llvm's unroller together with all standard optimizations produce code, which stores value to memory after every unrolled iteration, which is

I tried to manually assign each of 3 arrays a unique TBAA node. But it does not seem to help: alias analysis still considers arrays as may-alias, which most likely prevents the desired optimization. Below is the sample code with TBAA metadata inserted. Could you please suggest what might be wrong with it? Many thanks, - D. marcusmae at M17xR4:~/forge/llvm$ opt -time-passes -enable-tbaa -tbaa

Hi, I have a compiler project using an LLVM backend (compiled for 64 bit windows), and since it has started to get to production level source code sizes the compile times have gotten somewhat extreme (around 30 mins each time). Not sure what is the best metric for measuring whether 30 mins is reasonable. The .ll output file is ~1.5 million lines. A snip of the top of the stats output is

Hi, When I use Anova(car) to produce type III SS, 'Sum Sq' is reported in integers: > Anova(bot.lm3, type ="III") Anova Table (Type III tests) Response: bottemp Sum Sq Df F value Pr(>F) (Intercept) 45295 1 29436.4440 < 2e-16 fungroup 3 2 0.8259 0.44006 numsp.fun 11 2

Here is some timing information from running the Zig standard library tests: $ ./zig test ../std/index.zig --enable-timing-info Name Start End Duration Percent Initialize 0.0000 0.0010 0.0010 0.0001 Semantic Analysis 0.0010 0.9968 0.9958 0.1192 Code Generation 0.9968 1.4000 0.4032

I just upgraded our optimizer to LLVM 3.0 from 2.8 and noticed that the scalar replacement of aggregates pass takes a lot longer for some code. Has there been a performance regression in this pass, or does it do more work? LLVM 3.0: Total Execution Time: 1.0600 seconds (1.0526 wall clock) ---User Time--- --System Time-- --User+System-- ---Wall Time--- --- Name --- 0.5100

Dino, Alexey, there are a number of users suffering issues with your Powercom devices. Could you (Dino, and Keven if possible) please have a look at the below one, from Angela, and check for a fix? I've scheduled to release 2.6.1 next week, and having that fixed is part of the list. 2011/5/16 Angela Williams <angierfw at gmail.com> > Hi All > > On Friday 13 May 2011 at

Hi Tanya, > 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects > directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a > pre-compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. I compiled llvm and llvm-gcc with separate objects directories. Platform is x86_64-linux-gnu. > 2) Run make check, report any failures (FAIL or unexpected pass). Note > that you need to

LLVMers, 2.6 pre-release2 is ready to be tested by the community. http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.6/ If you have time, I'd appreciate anyone who can help test the release. To test llvm-gcc: 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a pre- compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. 2) Run make check,

here is a snippet of data where I would like to drop all rows that have zeros across them, and keep the rest of the rows while maintaining the row names (1,2,3, ...10). The idea here is that a row of zeros is an indication that the row must be dropped. There will never be the case where there is a row(of n columns) with less than 5 zeros in this case(n zeros I am unsure how to manipulate the

R 2.10 Windows 7 I am trying to plot three graphs on top of each other. I need to have the axises perfectly aligned. For some reason the ticks on the y axes are slightly off so they do not perfectly align. Can someone tell me how I can get the to overlay each other perfectly? I thought the yaxp parameter would solve my problem, but it does not. My data and code follows: >

G'Day Tanya, Is it too late to bring in the following patches to fix some major brokenness in the AuroraUX tool chain for 2.6? http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp?r1=84468&r2=84469&view=diff&pathrev=84469 http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp?r1=84265&r2=84266&view=diff&pathrev=84266

LLVMers, The 2.5 pre-release is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.5/ If you have time, I'd appreciate anyone who can help test the release. Please do the following: 1) Download/compile llvm source, and either compile llvm-gcc source or use llvm-gcc binary (please compile llvm-gcc with fortran if you can). 2) Run make check, send me the testrun.log 3) Run "make

Hello everyone, I am using *mlogit* to analyse my choice experiment data. I have *3 alternatives* for each individual and for each individual I have *9 questions*. I have a response from *516 individuals*. So it is a panel of 9*516 observations. I have arranged the data in long format (it contains 100 columns indicating different variables and identifiers). In mlogit I tried the following

Printing without this could lead to the following output, while the values are not exactly zero: IMM[5] FLT32 { 0.0000, 0.0000, 0.0000, 0.0000} IMM[6] FLT32 { 0.0000, 0.0000, 0.0000, 0.0000} IMM[7] FLT32 { 0.0000, 0.0000, 0.0000, 0.0000} when printing the values as hex, we can now see the differences: IMM[5] FLT32 {0x00000019, 0x0000000f, 0x00000005,