llvm dev - Feb 2013 - [LLVMdev] Parallel Loop Metadata

> I have the feeling option 2) does not work for you, but I don't yet
understand your reasons.
My inclination to prefer #1 is due to its simplicity. But, if #1 does not work
because it creates a correctness problems then #2 is the only option that is
left on the table.

On 02/12/2013 05:54 PM, Nadav Rotem wrote:
>
>> I have the feeling option 2) does not work for you, but I don't yet
understand your reasons.
>
> My inclination to prefer #1 is due to its simplicity. But, if #1 does not
work because it creates a correctness problems then #2 is the only option that
is left on the table.
Unfortunately. :-(

Does your reply mean you agree that option 2) should be taken?
In case you do, how should we proceed? Should Pekka submit his patch for 
a final pre-commit review?

If option 2) is OK, Paul could also try to produce this metadate from 
his #pragma ivdep parser.

Cheers
Tobias

On Feb 12, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote:
> On 02/12/2013 05:54 PM, Nadav Rotem wrote:
>> 
>>> I have the feeling option 2) does not work for you, but I don't
yet understand your reasons.
>> 
>> My inclination to prefer #1 is due to its simplicity. But, if #1 does
not work because it creates a correctness problems then #2 is the only option
that is left on the table.
> 
> Unfortunately. :-(
> 
> Does your reply mean you agree that option 2) should be taken?
Yes. I think that there is a consensus that this is the right approach.   
> In case you do, how should we proceed? Should Pekka submit his patch for a
final pre-commit review?
I think so. Pekka's patch from Jan 31st looks good to me.  The is bug in the
metadata handling in the vectorizer that we don't check that the load/store
annotation matches the loop metadata.
> 
> If option 2) is OK, Paul could also try to produce this metadate from his
#pragma ivdep parser.
> 
That would be wonderful. 

Thanks,
Nadav