search for: meijer

...t -a ../llvm/test/CodeGen/my_test.ll In a terminal, the new default behaviour of FileCheck has become pretty unusable IMHO. ________________________________ From: Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at quicinc.com> Sent: 18 June 2020 20:49 To: Joel E. Denny <jdenny.ornl at gmail.com> Cc: Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: RE: [llvm-dev] FileCheck Sjoerd specifically said “in verbose mode”, which I interpret to mean “when passing -v or -vv”. If we’re discussing the default behavior, then that’s a separate issue....

...sts is a separate discussion. That is, I think you can have 1 test-case in 1 file, and the current behaviour is already inconvenient, so don't see that as a solution. Cheers. ________________________________ From: Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> Sent: 19 June 2020 09:32 To: Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com> Cc: Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at quicinc.com>; Joel E. Denny <jdenny.ornl at gmail.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] FileCheck On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:56 AM Sjoerd Meijer via llvm-dev <ll...

...d matches, etc., but that's not part of the "new behaviour" Sjoerd meant, I believe. Joel > > > *From:* Joel E. Denny <jdenny.ornl at gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, June 18, 2020 10:54 AM > *To:* Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at quicinc.com> > *Cc:* Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > *Subject:* [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] FileCheck > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 1:37 PM Chris Tetreault via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The thing I use normal...

Yep, exactly that. We see quite a lot of them, most of them get cleaned up, but not always... Cheers. ________________________________ From: Roger Ferrer Ibáñez <rofirrim at gmail.com> Sent: 16 March 2020 08:53 To: Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com> Cc: LLVM-Dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Sam Parker <Sam.Parker at arm.com> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Redundant copies At this point however it doesn't (obviously) look like one (it still using different vregs) which suggests it might require a bit...

...they are going to customize it however they want. I > assume anybody using filecheck to debug an issue is tech savvy enough to be > able to configure the options, given reasonable documentation. > > > > Thanks, > > Christopher Tetreault > > > > *From:* Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, June 18, 2020 9:45 AM > *To:* Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at quicinc.com> > *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > *Subject:* [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] FileCheck > > > > > > I would guess that in a CI system the order doe...

...d yeah, it's fine either way, I was guessing. My primary use-case is usage in a terminal, and displaying the errors first followed by all input makes this pretty unusable. ________________________________ From: Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at quicinc.com> Sent: 18 June 2020 17:34 To: Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: RE: [llvm-dev] FileCheck For anybody viewing these failures through some sort of CI system, showing the error first then the input file is more useful for the same reasons you mentioned. Pe...

...it, and this remains the case. Only at the end, we use this intrinsic to instruction select a specific variant of the hardwarloop with some implicit predication. Cheers, Sjoerd. ________________________________ From: Simon Moll <Simon.Moll at EMEA.NEC.COM> Sent: 19 May 2020 09:56 To: Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com> Cc: Roger Ferrer Ibáñez <rofirrim at gmail.com>; Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com>; listmail at philipreames.com <listmail at philipreames.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Sander De Smalen <Sander.DeSmalen at arm.com>;...

...VP intrinsics were able to provide this. But to be honest, I have no preference at all what this intrinsic is, it is not relevant, as long as we can make this explicit. Cheers. ________________________________ From: Simon Moll <Simon.Moll at EMEA.NEC.COM> Sent: 18 May 2020 14:11 To: Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com> Cc: Roger Ferrer Ibáñez <rofirrim at gmail.com>; Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com>; listmail at philipreames.com <listmail at philipreames.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Sander De Smalen <Sander.DeSmalen at arm.com>;...

...that is already there in the vectoriser, and nothing is fundamentally changed here. Now, this seems very generic, and doesn't seem to bite the VP intrinsics. Cheers, Sjoerd. ________________________________ From: Simon Moll <Simon.Moll at EMEA.NEC.COM> Sent: 19 May 2020 15:07 To: Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com> Cc: Roger Ferrer Ibáñez <rofirrim at gmail.com>; Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com>; listmail at philipreames.com <listmail at philipreames.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Sander De Smalen <Sander.DeSmalen at arm.com>;...

...somewhere earlier in this thread, and emit an intrinsic that represents/calculates the active mask. I've just uploaded a new revision for D79100 that implements this. Cheers. ________________________________ From: Simon Moll <Simon.Moll at EMEA.NEC.COM> Sent: 18 May 2020 13:32 To: Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com> Cc: Roger Ferrer Ibáñez <rofirrim at gmail.com>; Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com>; listmail at philipreames.com <listmail at philipreames.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Sander De Smalen <Sander.DeSmalen at arm.com>;...

Thanks for reply. I was using LLVM 8.0. Let me try trunk and will let you know if it works. On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 11:19 PM Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com> wrote: > > Hi, > Which version of Clang are you using? I do get a "vfma.f16" with a recent trunk build. I haven't looked at older versions and when this landed, but we had an effort to plug the remaining fp16 holes not that long ago, so again...

...ackend. I still might have skipped a few details here, but this is what it boils down to, and hopefully you've got a good impression of the problem. Cheers, Sjoerd. ________________________________ From: Zaks, Ayal (Mobileye) <ayal.zaks at intel.com> Sent: 21 May 2020 18:44 To: Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com>; Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: RE: [llvm-dev] LV: predication > The compare that we are talking is the compare that compares the induction step and the backedge taken coun...

...s in the code. We started revising it,a few weeks ago. I thought now that there are multiple options, maybe we can discuss our approaches, and see if there is a preference in the community for one approach over the other ? What do you think? Thanks Ehsan On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 3:14 PM Sjoerd Meijer via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > And related while we are at it, i.e. the coremark specials, we have this > sitting in upstream review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42365 > That should help a bit too. It needs a little bit of work, but I thought > Dave didn't...

...ity. > > For my personal usage, I don't care what the default behavior is as long > as behavior is easy to customize. FILECHECK_OPTS lets me do that per test > suite run, or in my ~/.profile, or in my CI configs, etc. > > Joel > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:45 PM Sjoerd Meijer via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> I would guess that in a CI system the order doesn't matter much because >> you look at a webpage? I looked at some build bots today/yesterday that now >> also show this, and yeah, it's fine eithe...

Hello, Quick question to see if I haven't missed anything: I would like convert counting down loops, i.e. loops with a constant -1 step value, to counting up loops, because the vectoriser is able to better deal with these loops (see e.g. D76838 that I was discussing today with Ayal). It looks like LoopSimplifyCFG and IndVarSimplify don't do this. So was just curious if I haven't

...ot the VIV, I don't think SCEV for vector loops is going to be helpful. Please let me know if I can elaborate further, or if things are not clear. Cheers, Sjoerd. ________________________________ From: Zaks, Ayal (Mobileye) <ayal.zaks at intel.com> Sent: 20 May 2020 20:39 To: Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com>; Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: RE: [llvm-dev] LV: predication I realize this discussion and D79100 have progressed, sorry, but could we revisit the “simplest path” of derivin...

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 12:54 PM Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com> wrote: > Hi Alina, > > I think this is an excellent direction, this is the direction we should > take here. Just a somewhat irrelevant disagreement on this though: > > > Philip's point is spot on that we are deficient now in the testing of...

...simply our backend pass, would there be another way to pass this information on? If emitting an intrinsic is a blocker, could this be done with a loop annotation? Cheers, Sjoerd. ________________________________ From: Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com> Sent: 01 May 2020 19:30 To: Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: RE: [llvm-dev] LV: predication The problem with your proposal, as written, is that the vectorizer is producing the intrinsic. Because we don’t impose any ordering on optimizations before codegen, every optimiz...

...better understanding why current downstream passes pessimize canonical iv's, if they still do? > -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Michael > Kruse via llvm-dev > Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 12:33 > To: Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com> > Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] canonical form loops > > The topic came up before, e.g. https://reviews.llvm.org/D60565#1484984 > > > Some canonicalization passes are designed for this. In particular, > IndVarSimp...

On 11/6/20 12:39 PM, Sjoerd Meijer wrote: Hello Simon, Thanks for your replies, very useful. And yes, thanks for the example and making the target differences clear: ; Some examples: ; RISC-V V & VE(*): ; %mask = (splat i1 1) ; %evl = min(256, %n - %i) ; MVE/SVE : ; %mask = get.active.lane.mask(%i, %n) ;...