systemml-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From dusenberr...@gmail.com
Subject Re: Rework inter-procedural analysis
Date Wed, 14 Jun 2017 23:15:25 GMT
Agreed.  More documentation, especially within the optimizer portion of the engine, is quite
useful.  Given that a large number of our bugs and performance issues stem from this area,
it would be good for it to be clean and well documented so that future bug searches/fixes
can be completed in a more expedient manner.

--

Mike Dusenberry
GitHub: github.com/dusenberrymw
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/mikedusenberry

Sent from my iPhone.


> On Jun 14, 2017, at 8:51 AM, Nakul Jindal <nakul02@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Matthias,
> 
> If its not too much trouble, could you please create a design document for
> this change.
> This will help the rest of the contributors work on this component as well.
> 
> Thanks,
> Nakul
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 12:00 AM, Matthias Boehm <mboehm7@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> just a quick heads up: in the next couple of days, I'll rework our existing
>> inter-procedural analysis (IPA) in order to (1) create well-defined IPA
>> passes, (2) reuse functional call graphs across multiple rounds of IPA, and
>> (3) introduce new IPA passes such as fine-grained literal propagation and
>> replacements as well as inlining of functions with control structures. This
>> will help improve the performance and debugging of scripts with complex
>> function call patterns. However, since this is a rather disruptive change,
>> we might experience temporarily some compiler issues - if that happens
>> please file anything you encounter against SYSTEMML-1668.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Matthias
>> 

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, 7-Bit, 0 bytes)
View raw message