I enjoyed this presentation: http://www.linux-kongress.org/2009/slides/compiler_survey_felix_von_leitner.pdf Among other things it lists small code sequences when compiled with a small collection of compilers, including llvm 2.6. It looks like there are several fairly obvious things we could do better... -Chris
2009/11/7 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>:> I enjoyed this presentation: > http://www.linux-kongress.org/2009/slides/compiler_survey_felix_von_leitner.pdfWow, very comprehensive! Is there anyone working on vectorization? This is something that interests me, I might give it a try, just need some pointers. cheers, --renato Reclaim your digital rights, eliminate DRM, learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm
On Nov 7, 2009, at 4:15 PM, Renato Golin wrote:> 2009/11/7 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>: >> I enjoyed this presentation: >> http://www.linux-kongress.org/2009/slides/compiler_survey_felix_von_leitner.pdf > > Wow, very comprehensive! > > Is there anyone working on vectorization? This is something that > interests me, I might give it a try, just need some pointers.The first step is loop dependence analysis. This is required to determine loop reuse information and is the basis for a lot of vectorization and parallelization loop transformations. There is work in this area in mainline llvm, but I don't know the status of it. -Chris
On Nov 6, 2009, at 8:40 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:> I enjoyed this presentation: > http://www.linux-kongress.org/2009/slides/compiler_survey_felix_von_leitner.pdf > > Among other things it lists small code sequences when compiled with a > small collection of compilers, including llvm 2.6. It looks like > there are several fairly obvious things we could do better... >The person should be lauded for saying that inline assembly isn't all it's cracked up to be, and should be avoided when possible. :-) -bw