search for: avx256

Hello all, I would like to propose adding the -mprefer-avx256 and -mprefer-avx128 command line flags supported by latest GCC to clang. These flags will be used to limit the vector register size presented by TTI to the vectorizers. The backend will still be able to use wider registers for code written using the instrinsics in x86intrin.h. And the backend will...

...at 7:05 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Craig Topper via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> >> >> I would like to propose adding the -mprefer-avx256 and -mprefer-avx128 >> command line flags supported by latest GCC to clang. These flags will be >> used to limit the vector register size presented by TTI to the vectorizers. >> The backend will still be able to use wider registers for code written >> using the instrinsics i...

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017, at 05:47, Craig Topper via llvm-dev wrote: > That's a very good point about the ordering of the command line options. > gcc's current implementation treats -mprefer-avx256 has "prefer 256 over > 512" and -mprefer-avx128 as "prefer 128 over 256". Which feels weird for > other reasons, but has less of an ordering ambiguity. > > -mprefer-avx128 has been in gcc for many years and predates the creation > of > avx512. -mprefer-avx256...

...rosser via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017, at 05:47, Craig Topper via llvm-dev wrote: >> > That's a very good point about the ordering of the command line options. >> > gcc's current implementation treats -mprefer-avx256 has "prefer 256 over >> > 512" and -mprefer-avx128 as "prefer 128 over 256". Which feels weird for >> > other reasons, but has less of an ordering ambiguity. >> > >> > -mprefer-avx128 has been in gcc for many years and predates the creation &g...

...lvm.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017, at 05:47, Craig Topper via llvm-dev wrote: >>>> > That's a very good point about the ordering of the command line >>>> options. >>>> > gcc's current implementation treats -mprefer-avx256 has "prefer 256 >>>> over >>>> > 512" and -mprefer-avx128 as "prefer 128 over 256". Which feels weird >>>> for >>>> > other reasons, but has less of an ordering ambiguity. >>>> > >>>> > -mprefer-...

...>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017, at 05:47, Craig Topper via llvm-dev wrote: >>>>>> > That's a very good point about the ordering of the command line >>>>>> options. >>>>>> > gcc's current implementation treats -mprefer-avx256 has "prefer 256 >>>>>> over >>>>>> > 512" and -mprefer-avx128 as "prefer 128 over 256". Which feels >>>>>> weird for >>>>>> > other reasons, but has less of an ordering ambiguity. >>>>>&...

...>>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017, at 05:47, Craig Topper via llvm-dev wrote: >>>>>>> > That's a very good point about the ordering of the command line >>>>>>> options. >>>>>>> > gcc's current implementation treats -mprefer-avx256 has "prefer >>>>>>> 256 over >>>>>>> > 512" and -mprefer-avx128 as "prefer 128 over 256". Which feels >>>>>>> weird for >>>>>>> > other reasons, but has less of an ordering ambiguity. >&...

...>> > That's a very good point about the >> ordering of the command line options. >> > gcc's current implementation treats >> -mprefer-avx256 has "prefer 256 over >> > 512" and -mprefer-avx128 as "prefer >> 128 over 256". Which feels weird for >> > other reasons, but has less of an >>...

...05:47, Craig Topper via llvm-dev wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > That's a very good point about the ordering of the command line >>>>>>>>>> options. >>>>>>>>>> > gcc's current implementation treats -mprefer-avx256 has "prefer >>>>>>>>>> 256 over >>>>>>>>>> > 512" and -mprefer-avx128 as "prefer 128 over 256". Which feels >>>>>>>>>> weird for >>>>>>>>>> > other reaso...