llvm dev - Jan 2013 - [LLVMdev] [PATCH] parallel loop awareness to the LoopVectorizer

On 01/28/2013 06:45 PM, Nadav Rotem wrote:
> I am okay with this patch, assuming that you follow the review of Tobias
> and Renato and provide a separate patch for the min-iter-count and a few
> test cases.
OK. Any opinions on the location of the isParallelLoop() check? Shall I
put it to Loop so it is more widely accessible? I.e. Loop->isParallel().

-- 
Pekka

It sounds like a good idea to move the method in to Loop.

Is there a naming scheme for metadata? I think llvm.loop.* would be helpful for
loop-specific metadata. As for parallel I think it is a little too generic. If
ivdep are the semantics you're going for I'd use that.

paul

On 2013-01-28, at 12:03 PM, Pekka Jääskeläinen wrote:
> On 01/28/2013 06:45 PM, Nadav Rotem wrote:
>> I am okay with this patch, assuming that you follow the review of
Tobias
>> and Renato and provide a separate patch for the min-iter-count and a
few
>> test cases.
> 
> OK. Any opinions on the location of the isParallelLoop() check? Shall I
> put it to Loop so it is more widely accessible? I.e. Loop->isParallel().
> 
> -- 
> Pekka
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

On 01/28/2013 09:23 PM, Redmond, Paul wrote:
> If ivdep are the semantics you're going for I'd use that.
Fine, except I prefer not to include 'v' in it. Vectorization
is merely a one way to parallelize the loop.

How does llvm.loop.ignore_assumed_deps sound?

-- 
--Pekka