Chandler Carruth wrote:> This seems fine to me, but I'd like to make sure it looks OK to Nick as > well.I strongly prefer baking in knowledge about the intrinsics themselves into the passes if possible. Metadata will always be secondary. Separately, should value tracking look use range metadata when it's available? Absolutely. I think it should apply to all CallInst not just IntrinsicInst (which is derived from CallInst). Nick> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com > <mailto:jingyue at google.com>> wrote: > > Hi, > > The range metadata can only be attached to LoadInst for now. I am > considering extending its usage to IntrinsicInst so that the > frontend can annotate the range of the return value of an intrinsic > call. e.g., > %a = call i32 @llvm.xxx(), !range !0 > !0 = metadata !{ i32 0, i23 1024 } > > The motivation behind this extension is some optimizations we are > working on for CUDA programs. Some special registers in CUDA (e.g., > threadIdx.x) are bounded per CUDA programming guide, and knowing > their ranges can improve the precision of ValueTracking and benefit > optimizations such as InstCombine. > > To implement this idea, we need ValueTracking to be aware of the > ranges of these special variables. These special registers are so > far read-only and accessed using intrinsics. e.g., > %threadIdx.x = call i32 @llvm.nvvm.read.ptx.sreg.tid.x(). > > One possible approach is to have ValueTracking compute the known > bits of these intrinsics as special cases. This approach is already > taken for the x86_sse42_crc32_64_64 intrinsic. However, this > approach may not be elegant because the ranges of these CUDA special > registers depend on the GPU compute capability specified by > -target-cpu. For instance, blockIdx.x is bounded by 65535 in sm_20 > but 2^31-1 in sm_30. Exposing -target-cpu to ValueTracking is > probably discouraged. > > Therefore, the approach I am considering is to have clang annotate > the ranges of these CUDA special registers according to the > -target-cpu flag, and have ValueTracking pick the range metadata for > optimization. By doing so, we hide the target-specific info from > ValueTracking. > > The code change in llvm minus clang won't be large. The core change > is only a few lines: > http://reviews.llvm.org/differential/diff/10464/. If this extension > sounds good to you, I'll definitely add more tests and revise the > documents on range metadata. > > Best, > Jingyue > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote:> Chandler Carruth wrote: > >> This seems fine to me, but I'd like to make sure it looks OK to Nick as >> well. >> > > I strongly prefer baking in knowledge about the intrinsics themselves into > the passes if possible. Metadata will always be secondary. >So you're saying that in this particular case you'd prefer LLVM passes to know about the range of these PTX intrinsics, rather than Clang adding them as metadata? ValueTracking.cpp already has some iffy target knowledge (someone sneaked a direct Intrinsic::x86_sse42_crc32_64_64 check in there), but extending it to other intrinsics in other targets seems like too much... So should target info be passed into it in some way? Any suggestions where to put it? TargetLibraryInfo? TargetTransformInfo? In any case this seems like the target interface will have to be augmented, and we'll have to carry an object around into ValueTracking's compute* functions. If this is the right way, then this is the way it will be done - design ideas are appreciated. Eli> > Separately, should value tracking look use range metadata when it's > available? Absolutely. > > I think it should apply to all CallInst not just IntrinsicInst (which is > derived from CallInst). > > Nick > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com >> <mailto:jingyue at google.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> The range metadata can only be attached to LoadInst for now. I am >> considering extending its usage to IntrinsicInst so that the >> frontend can annotate the range of the return value of an intrinsic >> call. e.g., >> %a = call i32 @llvm.xxx(), !range !0 >> !0 = metadata !{ i32 0, i23 1024 } >> >> The motivation behind this extension is some optimizations we are >> working on for CUDA programs. Some special registers in CUDA (e.g., >> threadIdx.x) are bounded per CUDA programming guide, and knowing >> their ranges can improve the precision of ValueTracking and benefit >> optimizations such as InstCombine. >> >> To implement this idea, we need ValueTracking to be aware of the >> ranges of these special variables. These special registers are so >> far read-only and accessed using intrinsics. e.g., >> %threadIdx.x = call i32 @llvm.nvvm.read.ptx.sreg.tid.x(). >> >> One possible approach is to have ValueTracking compute the known >> bits of these intrinsics as special cases. This approach is already >> taken for the x86_sse42_crc32_64_64 intrinsic. However, this >> approach may not be elegant because the ranges of these CUDA special >> registers depend on the GPU compute capability specified by >> -target-cpu. For instance, blockIdx.x is bounded by 65535 in sm_20 >> but 2^31-1 in sm_30. Exposing -target-cpu to ValueTracking is >> probably discouraged. >> >> Therefore, the approach I am considering is to have clang annotate >> the ranges of these CUDA special registers according to the >> -target-cpu flag, and have ValueTracking pick the range metadata for >> optimization. By doing so, we hide the target-specific info from >> ValueTracking. >> >> The code change in llvm minus clang won't be large. The core change >> is only a few lines: >> http://reviews.llvm.org/differential/diff/10464/. If this extension >> sounds good to you, I'll definitely add more tests and revise the >> documents on range metadata. >> >> Best, >> Jingyue >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu> >> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140617/fcade112/attachment.html>
----- Original Message -----> From: "Eli Bendersky" <eliben at google.com> > To: "Nick Lewycky" <nicholas at mxc.ca> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 8:41:58 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Attaching range metadata to IntrinsicInst > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Nick Lewycky < nicholas at mxc.ca > > wrote: > > > > Chandler Carruth wrote: > > > This seems fine to me, but I'd like to make sure it looks OK to Nick > as > well. > > I strongly prefer baking in knowledge about the intrinsics themselves > into the passes if possible. Metadata will always be secondary. > > > > So you're saying that in this particular case you'd prefer LLVM > passes to know about the range of these PTX intrinsics, rather than > Clang adding them as metadata? > > ValueTracking.cpp already has some iffy target knowledge (someone > sneaked a direct Intrinsic::x86_sse42_crc32_64_64 check in there), > but extending it to other intrinsics in other targets seems like too > much... So should target info be passed into it in some way? Any > suggestions where to put it? TargetLibraryInfo? TargetTransformInfo? > In any case this seems like the target interface will have to be > augmented, and we'll have to carry an object around into > ValueTracking's compute* functions. If this is the right way, then > this is the way it will be done - design ideas are appreciated.Personally, I'd love to see all of the target-specific intrinsics, and all associated optimization information, localized to each target backend. As it stands, however, the target intrinsics are part of the IR, and the IR optimizers contain the logic necessary to canonicalize that IR. Because ValueTracking is used during canonicalization (by InstCombine, etc.), I think that having it directly understand the intrinsics is fine -- just try not to make the code too messy ;) -Hal> > > Eli > > > > > > > > > Separately, should value tracking look use range metadata when it's > available? Absolutely. > > I think it should apply to all CallInst not just IntrinsicInst (which > is derived from CallInst). > > Nick > > > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Jingyue Wu < jingyue at google.com > > > <mailto: jingyue at google.com >> wrote: > > Hi, > > The range metadata can only be attached to LoadInst for now. I am > considering extending its usage to IntrinsicInst so that the > frontend can annotate the range of the return value of an intrinsic > call. e.g., > %a = call i32 @llvm.xxx(), !range !0 > !0 = metadata !{ i32 0, i23 1024 } > > The motivation behind this extension is some optimizations we are > working on for CUDA programs. Some special registers in CUDA (e.g., > threadIdx.x) are bounded per CUDA programming guide, and knowing > their ranges can improve the precision of ValueTracking and benefit > optimizations such as InstCombine. > > To implement this idea, we need ValueTracking to be aware of the > ranges of these special variables. These special registers are so > far read-only and accessed using intrinsics. e.g., > %threadIdx.x = call i32 @llvm.nvvm.read.ptx.sreg.tid. x(). > > One possible approach is to have ValueTracking compute the known > bits of these intrinsics as special cases. This approach is already > taken for the x86_sse42_crc32_64_64 intrinsic. However, this > approach may not be elegant because the ranges of these CUDA special > registers depend on the GPU compute capability specified by > -target-cpu. For instance, blockIdx.x is bounded by 65535 in sm_20 > but 2^31-1 in sm_30. Exposing -target-cpu to ValueTracking is > probably discouraged. > > Therefore, the approach I am considering is to have clang annotate > the ranges of these CUDA special registers according to the > -target-cpu flag, and have ValueTracking pick the range metadata for > optimization. By doing so, we hide the target-specific info from > ValueTracking. > > The code change in llvm minus clang won't be large. The core change > is only a few lines: > http://reviews.llvm.org/ differential/diff/10464/ . If this extension > sounds good to you, I'll definitely add more tests and revise the > documents on range metadata. > > Best, > Jingyue > > ______________________________ _________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto: LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu > > http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/ mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > > > > ______________________________ _________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/ mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > > > ______________________________ _________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/ mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-- Hal Finkel Assistant Computational Scientist Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory
Thanks Chandler, Nick, Eli, and Hal for your comments! TargetTransformInfo and TargetLibraryInfo may not be the best places because their interfaces are designed to be generic. If we want to "bake in knowledge about the intrinsics themselves into the passes", what about embedding "target cpu" into the IR just as "target triple"? Then, we can call Module::getTargetCPU() to retrieve the target CPU. Jingyue On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote:> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > >> Chandler Carruth wrote: >> >>> This seems fine to me, but I'd like to make sure it looks OK to Nick as >>> well. >>> >> >> I strongly prefer baking in knowledge about the intrinsics themselves >> into the passes if possible. Metadata will always be secondary. >> > > So you're saying that in this particular case you'd prefer LLVM passes to > know about the range of these PTX intrinsics, rather than Clang adding them > as metadata? > > ValueTracking.cpp already has some iffy target knowledge (someone sneaked > a direct Intrinsic::x86_sse42_crc32_64_64 check in there), but extending > it to other intrinsics in other targets seems like too much... So should > target info be passed into it in some way? Any suggestions where to put it? > TargetLibraryInfo? TargetTransformInfo? In any case this seems like the > target interface will have to be augmented, and we'll have to carry an > object around into ValueTracking's compute* functions. If this is the right > way, then this is the way it will be done - design ideas are appreciated. > > Eli > > > > >> >> Separately, should value tracking look use range metadata when it's >> available? Absolutely. >> >> I think it should apply to all CallInst not just IntrinsicInst (which is >> derived from CallInst). >> >> Nick >> >> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com >>> <mailto:jingyue at google.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> The range metadata can only be attached to LoadInst for now. I am >>> considering extending its usage to IntrinsicInst so that the >>> frontend can annotate the range of the return value of an intrinsic >>> call. e.g., >>> %a = call i32 @llvm.xxx(), !range !0 >>> !0 = metadata !{ i32 0, i23 1024 } >>> >>> The motivation behind this extension is some optimizations we are >>> working on for CUDA programs. Some special registers in CUDA (e.g., >>> threadIdx.x) are bounded per CUDA programming guide, and knowing >>> their ranges can improve the precision of ValueTracking and benefit >>> optimizations such as InstCombine. >>> >>> To implement this idea, we need ValueTracking to be aware of the >>> ranges of these special variables. These special registers are so >>> far read-only and accessed using intrinsics. e.g., >>> %threadIdx.x = call i32 @llvm.nvvm.read.ptx.sreg.tid.x(). >>> >>> One possible approach is to have ValueTracking compute the known >>> bits of these intrinsics as special cases. This approach is already >>> taken for the x86_sse42_crc32_64_64 intrinsic. However, this >>> approach may not be elegant because the ranges of these CUDA special >>> registers depend on the GPU compute capability specified by >>> -target-cpu. For instance, blockIdx.x is bounded by 65535 in sm_20 >>> but 2^31-1 in sm_30. Exposing -target-cpu to ValueTracking is >>> probably discouraged. >>> >>> Therefore, the approach I am considering is to have clang annotate >>> the ranges of these CUDA special registers according to the >>> -target-cpu flag, and have ValueTracking pick the range metadata for >>> optimization. By doing so, we hide the target-specific info from >>> ValueTracking. >>> >>> The code change in llvm minus clang won't be large. The core change >>> is only a few lines: >>> http://reviews.llvm.org/differential/diff/10464/. If this extension >>> sounds good to you, I'll definitely add more tests and revise the >>> documents on range metadata. >>> >>> Best, >>> Jingyue >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu> >>> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>> >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140617/cb9ddf2e/attachment.html>
On 06/17/2014 01:38 AM, Nick Lewycky wrote:> Chandler Carruth wrote: >> This seems fine to me, but I'd like to make sure it looks OK to Nick as >> well. > > I strongly prefer baking in knowledge about the intrinsics themselves > into the passes if possible. Metadata will always be secondary.This dual approach seems non-ideal. I'll agree it's workable, but are there other options? I can see a couple of possible ones: - Adding an attribute for range on return or parameter values. This removes the dropped metadata problem. - Extending the function attribute inference pass to add range metadata for known functions/intrinsics. This would ensure that the range metadata could get reintroduced if some pass dropped it. This seems messy though. - Introduce a mechanism to canonicalize metadata and attributes on target intrinsics. The target provides a function which updates the intrinsic declaration (and call site?) as desired. The optimization passes call this on every target intrinsic before anything else, then proceed to use the metadata for optimization. I don't really like any of these; I'm mostly throwing them out in case it sparks an idea for someone.> > Separately, should value tracking look use range metadata when it's > available? Absolutely.Agreed.> > I think it should apply to all CallInst not just IntrinsicInst (which > is derived from CallInst).Yes please. It should also apply to InvokeInst as well.> > Nick > >> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com >> <mailto:jingyue at google.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> The range metadata can only be attached to LoadInst for now. I am >> considering extending its usage to IntrinsicInst so that the >> frontend can annotate the range of the return value of an intrinsic >> call. e.g., >> %a = call i32 @llvm.xxx(), !range !0 >> !0 = metadata !{ i32 0, i23 1024 } >> >> The motivation behind this extension is some optimizations we are >> working on for CUDA programs. Some special registers in CUDA (e.g., >> threadIdx.x) are bounded per CUDA programming guide, and knowing >> their ranges can improve the precision of ValueTracking and benefit >> optimizations such as InstCombine. >> >> To implement this idea, we need ValueTracking to be aware of the >> ranges of these special variables. These special registers are so >> far read-only and accessed using intrinsics. e.g., >> %threadIdx.x = call i32 @llvm.nvvm.read.ptx.sreg.tid.x(). >> >> One possible approach is to have ValueTracking compute the known >> bits of these intrinsics as special cases. This approach is already >> taken for the x86_sse42_crc32_64_64 intrinsic. However, this >> approach may not be elegant because the ranges of these CUDA special >> registers depend on the GPU compute capability specified by >> -target-cpu. For instance, blockIdx.x is bounded by 65535 in sm_20 >> but 2^31-1 in sm_30. Exposing -target-cpu to ValueTracking is >> probably discouraged. >> >> Therefore, the approach I am considering is to have clang annotate >> the ranges of these CUDA special registers according to the >> -target-cpu flag, and have ValueTracking pick the range metadata for >> optimization. By doing so, we hide the target-specific info from >> ValueTracking. >> >> The code change in llvm minus clang won't be large. The core change >> is only a few lines: >> http://reviews.llvm.org/differential/diff/10464/. If this extension >> sounds good to you, I'll definitely add more tests and revise the >> documents on range metadata. >> >> Best, >> Jingyue >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu> >> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
On 17 June 2014 06:41, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote:> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > >> Chandler Carruth wrote: >> >>> This seems fine to me, but I'd like to make sure it looks OK to Nick as >>> well. >>> >> >> I strongly prefer baking in knowledge about the intrinsics themselves >> into the passes if possible. Metadata will always be secondary. >> > > So you're saying that in this particular case you'd prefer LLVM passes to > know about the range of these PTX intrinsics, rather than Clang adding them > as metadata? >Yep. ValueTracking.cpp already has some iffy target knowledge (someone sneaked a> direct Intrinsic::x86_sse42_crc32_64_64 check in there), but extending it > to other intrinsics in other targets seems like too much... >That's not iffy. That's exactly how it should work, and we should have more of that. There is a major gotcha and that's dealing with the case where the intrinsics don't exist because the backend wasn't compiled in. If x86_sse42_crc32_64_64 is in there (and also in instcombine btw), presumably that problem is solved somehow? Or does llvm actually not build if you don't enable the x86 target? I feel like we would've heard about that. Nick So should target info be passed into it in some way? Any suggestions where> to put it? TargetLibraryInfo? TargetTransformInfo? In any case this seems > like the target interface will have to be augmented, and we'll have to > carry an object around into ValueTracking's compute* functions. If this is > the right way, then this is the way it will be done - design ideas are > appreciated. > > Eli > > > > >> >> Separately, should value tracking look use range metadata when it's >> available? Absolutely. >> >> I think it should apply to all CallInst not just IntrinsicInst (which is >> derived from CallInst). >> >> Nick >> >> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com >>> <mailto:jingyue at google.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> The range metadata can only be attached to LoadInst for now. I am >>> considering extending its usage to IntrinsicInst so that the >>> frontend can annotate the range of the return value of an intrinsic >>> call. e.g., >>> %a = call i32 @llvm.xxx(), !range !0 >>> !0 = metadata !{ i32 0, i23 1024 } >>> >>> The motivation behind this extension is some optimizations we are >>> working on for CUDA programs. Some special registers in CUDA (e.g., >>> threadIdx.x) are bounded per CUDA programming guide, and knowing >>> their ranges can improve the precision of ValueTracking and benefit >>> optimizations such as InstCombine. >>> >>> To implement this idea, we need ValueTracking to be aware of the >>> ranges of these special variables. These special registers are so >>> far read-only and accessed using intrinsics. e.g., >>> %threadIdx.x = call i32 @llvm.nvvm.read.ptx.sreg.tid.x(). >>> >>> One possible approach is to have ValueTracking compute the known >>> bits of these intrinsics as special cases. This approach is already >>> taken for the x86_sse42_crc32_64_64 intrinsic. However, this >>> approach may not be elegant because the ranges of these CUDA special >>> registers depend on the GPU compute capability specified by >>> -target-cpu. For instance, blockIdx.x is bounded by 65535 in sm_20 >>> but 2^31-1 in sm_30. Exposing -target-cpu to ValueTracking is >>> probably discouraged. >>> >>> Therefore, the approach I am considering is to have clang annotate >>> the ranges of these CUDA special registers according to the >>> -target-cpu flag, and have ValueTracking pick the range metadata for >>> optimization. By doing so, we hide the target-specific info from >>> ValueTracking. >>> >>> The code change in llvm minus clang won't be large. The core change >>> is only a few lines: >>> http://reviews.llvm.org/differential/diff/10464/. If this extension >>> sounds good to you, I'll definitely add more tests and revise the >>> documents on range metadata. >>> >>> Best, >>> Jingyue >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu> >>> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>> >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140617/b3eeaf74/attachment.html>
Possibly Parallel Threads
- [LLVMdev] Attaching range metadata to IntrinsicInst
- [LLVMdev] Attaching range metadata to IntrinsicInst
- [LLVMdev] Attaching range metadata to IntrinsicInst
- [LLVMdev] Attaching range metadata to IntrinsicInst
- [LLVMdev] Proposal: pragma for branch divergence