search for: jaaskelainen

> > For the record, I just workarounded it in pocl by borrowing the > BreakConstantGEPs code from SAFECode. But for SPIR specs, IMHO, this should > be reconsidered. Yes, I agree. On 24 September 2012 15:08, Pekka Jääskeläinen <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi>wrote: > Well, > > To be honest I'm not very comfortable with the whole constant GEP > idea. It's a new thing to me and I do not fully understand its > point in LLVM IR, so I probably wasn't very clear ;) > > Anyways, me bringing it up was meant as an...

...uk> wrote: > For the record, I just workarounded it in pocl by borrowing the >> BreakConstantGEPs code from SAFECode. But for SPIR specs, IMHO, this >> should >> be reconsidered. > > > Yes, I agree. > > On 24 September 2012 15:08, Pekka Jääskeläinen <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi>wrote: > >> Well, >> >> To be honest I'm not very comfortable with the whole constant GEP >> idea. It's a new thing to me and I do not fully understand its >> point in LLVM IR, so I probably wasn't very clear ;) >> >> Anyways, me...

...jamesmolloy.co.uk<mailto:james at jamesmolloy.co.uk>> wrote: For the record, I just workarounded it in pocl by borrowing the BreakConstantGEPs code from SAFECode. But for SPIR specs, IMHO, this should be reconsidered. Yes, I agree. On 24 September 2012 15:08, Pekka Jääskeläinen <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi<mailto:pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi>> wrote: Well, To be honest I'm not very comfortable with the whole constant GEP idea. It's a new thing to me and I do not fully understand its point in LLVM IR, so I probably wasn't very clear ;) Anyways, me bringing it up was me...

...- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Jonathan Humphreys" <j-humphreys at ti.com> >>> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Tobias Grosser" >>> <tobias at grosser.es> >>> Cc: "Pekka Jääskeläinen" <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi>, >>> llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >>> Sent: Monday, May 5, 2014 5:09:42 PM >>> Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] parallel loop metadata question >>> >>> Will do. I will write something up. >>> >>> Hal, your concern below isn't so much...

Hi Pekka, On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Pekka Jääskeläinen < pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> wrote: > > > Isn't it possible that multiple nested loops share the header and > the pre-header in normalized loops? Thus, then adding metadata to the > preheader's branch would make the MD ambiguous for nested loops. > > The header can't be shared, ot...

...t amount > is perfectly safe. Why would a constant GEP from a per-workgroup base be a > problem? > > > I'm sure there's something I've misunderstood about your solution... > > Cheers, > > James > > On 24 September 2012 12:41, Pekka Jääskeläinen <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi > <mailto:pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi>> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Another OpenCL C implementation issue I'm currently fighting with > is how >> to best implement the automatic __local variables. Seems SPIR > enforces >> the current Clang...

...t amount > is perfectly safe. Why would a constant GEP from a per-workgroup base be a > problem? > > > I'm sure there's something I've misunderstood about your solution... > > Cheers, > > James > > On 24 September 2012 12:41, Pekka Jääskeläinen <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Another OpenCL C implementation issue I'm currently fighting with is how > > to best implement the automatic __local variables. Seems SPIR enforces > > the current Clang implementation of them that converts the automati...

...14 4:00 AM To: Tobias Grosser Cc: Pekka Jääskeläinen; Humphreys, Jonathan; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] parallel loop metadata question ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> > To: "Pekka Jääskeläinen" <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi>, "Jonathan > Humphreys" <j-humphreys at ti.com>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Monday, May 5, 2014 3:36:07 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] parallel loop metadata question > > On 05/05/2014 10:14, Pekka Jääskeläinen wrote: > > On 05/02/2014 07:22 PM,...

On Feb 7, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Pekka Jääskeläinen <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> wrote: > Hi Nadav, > > On 02/07/2013 07:46 PM, Nadav Rotem wrote: >> Pekka suggested that we add two kind of metadata: llvm.loop.parallel >> (attached to each loop latch) and llvm.mem.parallel (attached to each memory >> instruction!). I think that the mo...

...low the review of Tobias and Renato and provide a separate patch for the min-iter-count and a few test cases. I think that it would be a good idea to start a new thread and to discuss the best way to annotate loops in LLVM. Thanks, Nadav On Jan 28, 2013, at 5:49 AM, Pekka Jääskeläinen <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> wrote: > Hi Renato, > > On 01/28/2013 03:22 PM, Renato Golin wrote: >> This seems an awfully specific check on a generic part of the code... If > > True. Perhaps the check is better encapsulated, e.g., in the Loop class? > Or, if there's such thing as a...

...el loop metadata question ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jonathan Humphreys" <j-humphreys at ti.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Tobias Grosser" > <tobias at grosser.es> > Cc: "Pekka Jääskeläinen" <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi>, > llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Monday, May 5, 2014 5:09:42 PM > Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] parallel loop metadata question > > Will do. I will write something up. > > Hal, your concern below isn't so much with the proposed semantics but > rather with th...

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pekka Jääskeläinen" <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> > To: "Paul Redmond" <paul.redmond at intel.com> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es>, "<llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>" > <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Tuesday, M...

Hi Renato, On 01/28/2013 03:22 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > This seems an awfully specific check on a generic part of the code... If True. Perhaps the check is better encapsulated, e.g., in the Loop class? Or, if there's such thing as a loop-carried data dependency analyzer, the correct place could be there, as a trivial "no deps" analysis. > this metadata standard in any

Nadav Rotem wrote: > > On Feb 7, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Pekka Jääskeläinen <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> wrote: > > > Hi Nadav, > > > > On 02/07/2013 07:46 PM, Nadav Rotem wrote: > >> Pekka suggested that we add two kind of metadata: llvm.loop.parallel > >> (attached to each loop latch) and llvm.mem.parallel (attached to each memory > >>...

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com> > To: "Pekka Jääskeläinen" <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 10:45:36 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] parallel loop awareness to the LoopVectorizer > > Hi Pekka, > > I am okay with this patch, assuming that y...

On 02/08/2013 07:02 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > Nadav Rotem wrote: >> >> On Feb 7, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Pekka Jääskeläinen <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> wrote: >> >>> Hi Nadav, >>> >>> On 02/07/2013 07:46 PM, Nadav Rotem wrote: >>>> Pekka suggested that we add two kind of metadata: llvm.loop.parallel >>>> (attached to each loop latch) and llvm.mem.parallel (attached to each memo...

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Redmond" <paul.redmond at intel.com> > To: "Pekka Jääskeläinen" <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> > Cc: "CVS Commit Messages for LLVM repository" <llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" > <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:27:03 PM > Subject: Re: [PATCH] parallel loop metadata > > Hi...

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Redmond" <paul.redmond at intel.com> > To: "Pekka Jääskeläinen" <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> > Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:36:50 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Parallel Loop Metadata > > The documentation isn't clear about the uniqueness of loop identifier > metadata. Shou...

The documentation isn't clear about the uniqueness of loop identifier metadata. Should every loop have a unique loop id metadata? I think the answer is yes but I'm not sure how this can be enforced. A particular case I'm thinking of is something like: void foo() { for (...) { } } void bar() { for (...) { foo(); } } If the loops in foo and bar have the same loop id

On 05/05/2014 10:14, Pekka Jääskeläinen wrote: > On 05/02/2014 07:22 PM, Humphreys, Jonathan wrote: >> Thanks for the link. I understand your concern of caution with metadata. >> I cannot, though, imagine how the dependence relation (independence) >> of two >> memory references can be affected by a third memory reference. If two >> references are independent