search for: loopvectorizers

Hi folks, I've been playing with LLVM on a Chromebook (Ubuntu) and it seems to work quite well. Installing Ubuntu on the Chromebook was a breeze[1] and all tools/libs/headers required to check-out and build LLVM were accessible via apt-get. I had two problems to build it, but apart from those, it all ran smoother than I'd expected. I'll investigate the errors a bit deeper later on,

Hello. I am trying to create my own LoopVectorize.cpp pass as a separate pass from the LLVM trunk, as described in http://llvm.org/docs/CMake.html#embedding-llvm-in-your-project. Did anybody try something like this? I added close to the end of the .cpp file: /* this line seems to be required - it allows to run this pass as an embedded pass by giving opt -my-loop-vectorize

Hi, I'm studying loop vectorizer. I don't understand the code yet. But it looks not right to assign L->begin() to E. Is it a typo? Thanks, Liang diff --git a/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp b/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp index 435c005..87b5d79 100644 --- a/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp +++ b/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp @@

Hi Renato, The tests below are target independent and should pass. Did you build the x86 backend ? I think that the problem is that opt uses the triple from the LL file to initialize the backends and the cost model, and if you don't have the x86 backend then the tests fail. I will fix the tests shortly. Thanks, Nadav On Jan 4, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at

Looking at it now, curious why no tests failed. On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > Almost certainly, yes. Nice catch! > > > On Mar 18, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Liang Wang <netcasper at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I'm studying loop vectorizer. I don't understand the code yet. But > > it

Hi All- This seems like such a pathetic problem to be posting about, but I have no idea why this testcase does not work. I have tried this using R 2.4.1, 2.4.0, 2.3.0, and 2.0.0 on several different computers (Mac OS 10.4.8, Windows XP, Linux). Below the signature, you will find my test case R code. My point in this folly is to take a dataframe of 300,000 rows, create a filter based on two

Hi Anadi, In the file PassManagerBuilder.cpp you can change the lines below to get rid of the O3 restriction. 189 if (LoopVectorize && OptLevel > 2) 190 MPM.add(createLoopVectorizePass()); Nadav On Apr 10, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Anadi Mishra <reachanadi at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I am trying out the LoopVectorizer(LV) pass and would like to decouple

Hello, I am trying out the LoopVectorizer(LV) pass and would like to decouple it from O3 which is currently required to run LV. I want to do this because I want to understand the behaviour of LV by trying simple loops but the O3 mostly optimises away the loop body. Any ideas would be appreciated. Best, Anadi. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi Nadav, I tried your suggestion by changing the condition to : 189 if (LoopVectorize && OptLevel >= 0) 190 MPM.add(createLoopVectorizePass()); and compiled. Then I used the following command: opt -mtriple=x86_64-linux-gnu -vectorize-loops -vectorizer-min-trip-count=6 -debug-only=loop-vectorize -O1-S -o example1_vect.s example1.s where example1.s is IR generated by clang -S

On 01/25/2013 04:00 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > Based on this experience, can you propose some metadata that would allow > this to happen (so that the LoopVectorizer would be generally useful for > POCL)? I suspect this same metadata might be useful in other contexts (such > as implementing iteration-independence pragmas). I cannot yet. In this hack I simply changed LoopVectorizer to

Hello, Michael, I'd like to ask if we can enhance the LoopVectorize LLVM module (I am currently using a version from Jul 2016). More exactly: - do you envision to support in the near future LLVM IR gather and scatter intrinsics (as described at http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#llvm-masked-gather-intrinsics and scatter)? I see you have defined some methods that should

Hello, We would like to propose making LoopVectorize aware of SLP operations, to improve the generated code for loops operating on struct fields or doing complex math. At the moment, LoopVectorize uses interleaving to vectorize loops that operate on values loaded/stored from consecutive addresses: vector loads/stores are generated to combine consecutive loads/stores and then shufflevector

Hi Anadi, Yes, this is a bug in the loop vectorizer. The loop vectorizer expects only one loop counter (integer with step=1). There is no reason why we should not handle the case below, and it should be easy to fix. Interestingly enough if you reverse the order of iterations and count from SIZE to zero, the loop vectorizer would vectorize it. If you open a bugzilla report and assign it to me

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pekka Jääskeläinen" <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> > To: "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 5:35:16 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LoopVectorizer in OpenCL C work group autovectorization > > On

Thanks, that did it! Are there any plans to enable the loop vectorizer by default? From: Nadav Rotem [mailto:nrotem at apple.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 13:33 PM To: Nowicki, Tyler Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: Packed instructions generaetd by LoopVectorize? Hi Tyler, Try adding -ffast-math. We can only vectorize reduction variables if it is safe to reorder floating

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pekka Jääskeläinen" <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com> > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:14:57 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LoopVectorizer in OpenCL

Done. Best, Anadi. On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Anadi, > > Yes, this is a bug in the loop vectorizer. The loop vectorizer expects only > one loop counter (integer with step=1). There is no reason why we should > not handle the case below, and it should be easy to fix. Interestingly > enough if you reverse the order of

Hi Ralf, On 01/31/2013 05:44 PM, Ralf Karrenberg wrote: > As for the current status, the loop vectorizer is only able to vectorize > inner loops and (I think) does not handle function calls and memory > operations well. This will prevent it from vectorizing a large group of > OpenCL kernels, and certainly all "interesting", more complex ones. Agreed -- but not being able to

Hello. I'm not able to vectorize this simple C loop doing basically what could be called predicated sum-reduction: #define NMAX 1000 int colOccupied[NMAX]; void Func(int N) { int numSol = 0; for (int c = 0; c < N; c++) { if (colOccupied[c] == 0) numSol++; } return numSol; } The compiler

Hi Florian! This proposal sounds pretty exciting! Integrating SLP-aware loop vectorization (or the other way around) and SLP into the VPlan framework is definitely aligned with the long term vision and we would prefer this approach to the LoopReroll and InstCombine alternatives that you mentioned. We prefer a generic implementation that can handle complicated cases to something ad-hoc for some