|
|
|
|
|
|
by almostgotcaught
721 days ago
|
|
|
> No I don't understand the force of this no when the question is "is this like...". That's a solid yes as far as I can tell since the two papers are about the same general area. > first you model code using polyhedra No one does this - if your code is already known to be a "polyhedron" (a set of inequalities) then you would optimize like everyone else does: using simplex. In polyhedral compilers the hard part is finding the implicit polyhedra in loop nests. Optimization is also hard (np- hard) but there's no way around that so it doesn't matter and so everyone just uses ISL. |
|
|
I understood the question as asking whether the two papers contain similar content (which they do not) and replied in kind. You are right of course that they deal with the same general concept.
> In polyhedral compilers the hard part is finding the implicit polyhedra in loop nests
I was not very clear; this is what I had in mind when writing "you model code using polyhedra". I meant that the polyhedral compiler builds a model of the code using polyhedra as the first step of the compilation, not that the user would do it.