Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "assumed_dep".
2013 Jan 29
5
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] parallel loop metadata
...ed it can be an empty set,
thus equivalent to "no dep checking at all needed":
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-January/058727.html
Maybe the safe thing here is to rename it back to the honest
"llvm.loop.parallel" or similar and we can add a separate one for
the assumed_dep later on. This one would support the truly parallel
loops (at least OpenMP for and OpenCL WIloops) where no compiler
checking at all can be assumed by the programmer.
Any objections? Paul Redmond?
--
--Pekka
2013 Jan 29
1
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] parallel loop metadata
...t: Re: [PATCH] parallel loop metadata
>
> Hi Pekka,
>
> On 2013-01-29, at 2:42 PM, Pekka Jääskeläinen wrote:
>
> > Maybe the safe thing here is to rename it back to the honest
> > "llvm.loop.parallel" or similar and we can add a separate one for
> > the assumed_dep later on. This one would support the truly parallel
> > loops (at least OpenMP for and OpenCL WIloops) where no compiler
> > checking at all can be assumed by the programmer.
> >
> > Any objections? Paul Redmond?
> >
>
> I don't have any objections. I thin...
2013 Jan 29
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] parallel loop metadata
Hi Pekka,
On 2013-01-29, at 2:42 PM, Pekka Jääskeläinen wrote:
> Maybe the safe thing here is to rename it back to the honest
> "llvm.loop.parallel" or similar and we can add a separate one for
> the assumed_dep later on. This one would support the truly parallel
> loops (at least OpenMP for and OpenCL WIloops) where no compiler
> checking at all can be assumed by the programmer.
>
> Any objections? Paul Redmond?
>
I don't have any objections. I think the only requirement is that the...
2013 Jan 29
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] parallel loop metadata
...s equivalent to "no dep checking at all needed":
>
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-January/058727.html
>
> Maybe the safe thing here is to rename it back to the honest
> "llvm.loop.parallel" or similar and we can add a separate one for
> the assumed_dep later on. This one would support the truly parallel
> loops (at least OpenMP for and OpenCL WIloops) where no compiler
> checking at all can be assumed by the programmer.
Will parallel always be synonymous with no_interiteration_dependencies? I'm sightly worried that 'parallel' s...