search for: kevinstreit

On 9 March 2015 at 17:30, Tobias Grosser <tgrosser at inf.ethz.ch> wrote: > If my memories are right, one of the critical issues (besides > other engineering considerations) was that parallelism metadata in LLVM is > optional and can always be dropped. However, for > OpenMP it sometimes is incorrect to execute a loop sequential that has been > marked parallel in the source

On 10 March 2015 at 08:36, Kevin Streit <streit at mailbox.org> wrote: > Again, optimizations could break it, violating a possible contract with the user. AFAIK, all these annotations are more hints than contracts. Adding #pragma omp simd on a loop that has forward dependencies that cannot be solved should not make the loop vectorize (incorrectly). Same goes for standard OMP, threads and

I'm part of a research group at MIT looking to create an extension of LLVM that inherently allows one to nicely code a parallel loop. Most parallel frameworks tend to take the body of a parallel loop and stick it inside of a function for the parallel runtime to call when appropriate. However, this makes optimizations significantly more difficult as most compiler optimizations tend to be