Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "enableatomictidi".
Did you mean:
enableatomictidy
2014 Oct 14
3
[LLVMdev] RFC: Should we have (something like) -extra-vectorizer-passes in -O2?
For what it is worth, I agree with the usefulness of having a concept of
"cleanup pass". Another example of a situation where it would be nice is in
the fence elimination patch I sent for review recently: the pass is rather
expensive because it relies on several analysis passes, and is only useful
if AtomicExpand introduced fences. Being able to say "Only run this pass if
the code
2014 Oct 14
2
[LLVMdev] RFC: Should we have (something like) -extra-vectorizer-passes in -O2?
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com>
> To: "Robin Morisset" <morisset at google.com>
> Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "James Molloy" <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List"
> <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14,
2014 Oct 14
4
[LLVMdev] RFC: Should we have (something like) -extra-vectorizer-passes in -O2?
I’ll summarize your responses as: The new pipeline produces better results than the old, and we currently have no good mechanism for reducing the compile time overhead.
I’ll summarize my criticism as: In principle, there are better ways to clean up after the vectorizer without turning it into a complicated megapass, but no one has done the engineering. I don’t think cleaning up after the