Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "allocti".
Did you mean:
allocty
2011 Nov 11
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On 11/12/2011 12:11 AM, Hal Finkel wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 23:55 +0100, Tobias Grosser wrote:
>> On 11/11/2011 11:36 PM, Hal Finkel wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 23:07 +0100, Tobias Grosser wrote:
>>>> On 11/08/2011 11:29 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: Talking about this I
>>>> looked again into ScalarEvolution.
>>>>
>>>> To
2011 Nov 11
2
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 23:55 +0100, Tobias Grosser wrote:
> On 11/11/2011 11:36 PM, Hal Finkel wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 23:07 +0100, Tobias Grosser wrote:
> >> On 11/08/2011 11:29 PM, Hal Finkel wrote:
> >> Talking about this I looked again into ScalarEvolution.
> >>
> >> To analyze a load, you would do:
> >>
> >> LoadInst *Load
2011 Nov 15
3
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
Tobias,
I've attached the latest version of my autovectorization patch. I was
able to add support for using the ScalarEvolution analysis for
load/store pairing (thanks for your help!). This led to a modest
performance increase and a modest compile-time increase. This version
also has a cutoff as you suggested (although the default value is set
high (4000 instructions between pairs) because
2011 Nov 16
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
Tobias, et al.,
Attached is the my autovectorization pass. I've fixed a bug that appears
when using -bb-vectorize-aligned-only, fixed some 80-col violations,
etc., and at least on x86_64, all test cases pass except for a few; and
all of these failures look like instruction-selection bugs. For example:
MultiSource/Applications/ClamAV - fails to compile shared_sha256.c with
an error: error in