JF Bastien via llvm-dev
2016-Jun-13 23:03 UTC
[llvm-dev] [Proposal][RFC] Cache aware Loop Cost Analysis
> > > A primary drawback in the above patch is the static use of Cache Line > Size. I wish to get this data from tblgen/TTI and I am happy to submit > patches on it. > > Yes, this sounds like the right direction. The targets obviously need to > provide this information. >I'd like to help review this as it'll be necessary to implement http://wg21.link/p0154r1 which is (likely) in C++17. It adds two values, constexpr std::hardware_{constructive,destructive}_interference_size, because in some configurations you don't have a precise cacheline size but rather a range based on what multiple architectures have implemented for the same ISA. I think you'll want something similar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160613/e8d525b5/attachment.html>
Vikram TV via llvm-dev
2016-Jun-15 16:12 UTC
[llvm-dev] [Proposal][RFC] Cache aware Loop Cost Analysis
I hope the proposal is fine with the community. Should I wait on this thread a little longer before I start updating the patch?>On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 4:33 AM, JF Bastien <jfb at google.com> wrote:> >> A primary drawback in the above patch is the static use of Cache Line >> Size. I wish to get this data from tblgen/TTI and I am happy to submit >> patches on it. >> >> Yes, this sounds like the right direction. The targets obviously need to >> provide this information. >> > > I'd like to help review this as it'll be necessary to implement > http://wg21.link/p0154r1 which is (likely) in C++17. >Thanks!> >>>-- Good time... Vikram TV CompilerTree Technologies Mysore, Karnataka, INDIA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160615/d8cc9b54/attachment.html>
Vikram TV via llvm-dev
2016-Jun-21 16:41 UTC
[llvm-dev] [Proposal][RFC] Cache aware Loop Cost Analysis
Ping! On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Vikram TV <vikram.tarikere at gmail.com> wrote:> > I hope the proposal is fine with the community. Should I wait on this > thread a little longer before I start updating the patch? > >> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 4:33 AM, JF Bastien <jfb at google.com> wrote: > >> >>> A primary drawback in the above patch is the static use of Cache Line >>> Size. I wish to get this data from tblgen/TTI and I am happy to submit >>> patches on it. >>> >>> Yes, this sounds like the right direction. The targets obviously need to >>> provide this information. >>> >> >> I'd like to help review this as it'll be necessary to implement >> http://wg21.link/p0154r1 which is (likely) in C++17. >> > Thanks! > >> >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Good time... > Vikram TV > CompilerTree Technologies > Mysore, Karnataka, INDIA >-- Good time... Vikram TV CompilerTree Technologies Mysore, Karnataka, INDIA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160621/107d72ff/attachment.html>