search for: llvm_anyvector_ti

Hi, The proposed masked vector intrinsics are overloaded - one intrinsic ID for multiple types. After name mangling it will look like: %res = call <16 x i32> @llvm.masked.load.v16i32.p0i32.v16i32.i32.v16i1(i32* %addr, <16 x i32>%passthru, i32 4, <16 x i1> %mask) 6 types x 3 vector sizes = 18 names for one operation I propose to remove name mangling from these intrinsics: %res

> On Oct 26, 2014, at 8:22 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Elena Demikhovsky" <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:17:49 AM >> Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] Masked vector

Hal, thank you for your opinion. I just was confused when I saw so long name " llvm.masked.load.v16i32.p0i32.v16i32.i32.v16i1" . If we stay with a short name, we do a step towards instruction form. - Elena -----Original Message----- From: Hal Finkel [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 17:06 To: Demikhovsky, Elena Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re:

Masked load/store are overloaded intrinsics, the only generic type is the type of the value being loaded/stored. The signature of the intrinsic is generated based on this type. The type of the pointer argument is generated as a pointer to the return type with default addrspace. E.g.: declare <8 x i32> @llvm.masked.load.v8i32(<8 x i32>*, i32, <8 x i1>, <8 x i32>) The

My gut feeling is that it’s not worth it. When we move from typed to untyped pointers, we’re going to change the mangling from something like p200i8 to just p200, which is already quite a bit cleaner, and actually looks cleaner to me than the version proposed in this patch. David > On 24 Feb 2016, at 17:28, Philip Reames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > This

It sounds like the Android RenderScript guys have the most in-the-trenches experience with bitcode incompatibilities. Stephen Hines (CC'd), what sorts of incompatibilities have you guys seen during the 3.x timeline? Would Steven Wu's proposal catch the sorts of incompatibilities that you guys have seen? -- Sean Silva On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Steven Wu <stevenwu at apple.com>

This probably needs broader discussion. We have an existing naming mechanism for polymorphic intrinsics; Elena is proposing a new one to avoid making the names for various load/store intrinsics particularly ugly. My personal take: 1) I like the cleaner naming scheme. 2) I'm not sure the additional complexity is worth it. (Not specific to the particular implementation proposed here.) 3) I

> On Sep 19, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > So the proposal is that during development new features are added to > test/Features/compatibility.ll (or some other name). When 3.6 is > released, we will > > * assemble the file with llvm-as-3.6. > * Check in the .bc file as test/Features/Input/compatibility-3.6.bc > *