On 08/11/2010 15:44, Max Bolingbroke wrote:
On 6 November 2010 04:47, David Peixottod...@rice.edu wrote:
Are you sure about R1 aliasing Sp? AFAIK, R1 points to a closure on the heap,
not to a stack location. That is, it can alias pointers on the stack or Hp but
it can't alias the Sp itself.
On 6 November 2010 04:47, David Peixotto d...@rice.edu wrote:
Are you sure about R1 aliasing Sp? AFAIK, R1 points to a closure on the
heap, not to a stack location. That is, it can alias pointers on the stack
or Hp but it can't alias the Sp itself. I don't think Sp can be aliased by
Yes indeed, this is what some fusion code could look like. I deal with stuff
like this:
mk i j = enumFromN (i+1) (j-i-2) -- gen indices, sometimes index pairs
f i j k = T!(i,k) + T!(k+1,j) -- table lookup using some 2d tables
g i j k = fun i k + fun (k+1) j -- some funny calculation
z i j =
...@haskell.org
[mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-
| boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Roman Leshchinskiy
| Sent: 03 November 2010 10:55
| To: Christian Hoener zu Siederdissen
| Cc: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: Loop optimisation with identical counters
|
| LLVM doesn't
On 05/11/2010, at 23:22, David Peixotto wrote:
I spent some time looking at the code generated for llvm and the optimizations
it can apply. There were quite a bit of details to examine and I wrote it up
as blog post here:
Hi Roman,
On Nov 5, 2010, at 6:44 PM, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
On 05/11/2010, at 23:22, David Peixotto wrote:
I spent some time looking at the code generated for llvm and the
optimizations
it can apply. There were quite a bit of details to examine and I wrote it up
as blog post here:
On 06/11/2010, at 00:28, David Peixotto wrote:
Yes, the LLVM code has Sp, Hp, Base all annotated as noalias. I believe that
Sp, Hp, and Base should never alias, but a (boxed) R1 should always alias
with either Sp or Hp. I had a hard time determining exactly how LLVM uses the
noalias
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/5/10 19:22 , David Peixotto wrote:
Probably there are some wins to be had by choosing a good optimization
sequence for the code generated from GHC, rather than just using `-O1`,
`-O2`, etc. I believe It should be possible to find
On Nov 6, 2010, at 8:22 AM, David Peixotto wrote:
To summarize, I found that it is possible to get LLVM to do this
transformation through a combination of tail-call elimination,
inlining,
induction variable optimization, and global value numbering.
Interesting. This approach requires `f`
On 06/11/2010, at 02:27, Sebastian Fischer wrote:
Interesting. This approach requires `f` to be inlined into its call site in
order to eliminate the redundant argument. This is different from the
proposal to provide a specialized version of `f` (where the arguments are
combined) which
On Nov 5, 2010, at 7:55 PM, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
On 06/11/2010, at 00:28, David Peixotto wrote:
Yes, the LLVM code has Sp, Hp, Base all annotated as noalias. I believe that
Sp, Hp, and Base should never alias, but a (boxed) R1 should always alias
with either Sp or Hp. I had a hard
On Nov 5, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/5/10 19:22 , David Peixotto wrote:
Probably there are some wins to be had by choosing a good optimization
sequence for the code generated from GHC, rather than just using
Which proposal do you mean?
I referred to Christian's questions whether it is possible to generate
`ff` and `gg` from `f` and `g`. If `h` is similar to `g`, then `hh`
could reuse `ff` while with an inlining approach something like `ff`
would be duplicated.
I'm not sure something like
| To: Christian Hoener zu Siederdissen
| Cc: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: Loop optimisation with identical counters
|
| LLVM doesn't eliminate the counters. FWIW, fixing this would improve
performance of
| stream fusion code quite a bit. It's very easy to do in Core.
|
| Roman
] On Behalf Of Roman Leshchinskiy
| Sent: 03 November 2010 10:55
| To: Christian Hoener zu Siederdissen
| Cc: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: Loop optimisation with identical counters
|
| LLVM doesn't eliminate the counters. FWIW, fixing this would improve
performance
Thanks, I'll do some measurements on this with ghc7.
Gruss,
Christian
On 11/02/2010 01:23 PM, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 02/11/2010 08:17, Christian Höner zu Siederdissen wrote:
Hi,
is the following problem a job for ghc or the code generation backend
(llvm)?
We are given this program:
{-#
On 3 Nov 2010, at 10:45, Christian Hoener zu Siederdissen
choe...@tbi.univie.ac.at wrote:
Thanks, I'll do some measurements on this with ghc7.
Gruss,
Christian
On 11/02/2010 01:23 PM, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 02/11/2010 08:17, Christian Höner zu Siederdissen wrote:
Hi,
is the
LLVM doesn't eliminate the counters. FWIW, fixing this would improve
performance of stream fusion code quite a bit. It's very easy to do in Core.
Roman
On 3 Nov 2010, at 10:45, Christian Hoener zu Siederdissen
choe...@tbi.univie.ac.at wrote:
Thanks, I'll do some measurements on this with
Is there a ticket for this (didn't find one)? Or should there be?
For some reason, I'd like to see this in ghc ;-)
Gruss,
Christian
On 11/03/2010 11:54 AM, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
LLVM doesn't eliminate the counters. FWIW, fixing this would improve
performance of stream fusion code quite a
Hi,
is the following problem a job for ghc or the code generation backend
(llvm)?
We are given this program:
{-# LANGUAGE BangPatterns #-}
module Main where
f :: Int - Int - Int - Int - Int
f !i !j !s !m
| i == 0= s+m
| otherwise = f (i-1) (j-1) (s + i+1) (m + j*5)
g :: Int - Int
g
On 02/11/2010 08:17, Christian Höner zu Siederdissen wrote:
Hi,
is the following problem a job for ghc or the code generation backend
(llvm)?
We are given this program:
{-# LANGUAGE BangPatterns #-}
module Main where
f :: Int - Int - Int - Int - Int
f !i !j !s !m
| i == 0= s+m
21 matches
Mail list logo
