Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "no_interiteration_dependencies".
2013 Jan 29
1
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] parallel loop metadata
On 01/29/2013 10:17 PM, Hal Finkel wrote:
> Will parallel always be synonymous with no_interiteration_dependencies? I'm
> sightly worried that 'parallel' seems too much like a directive, and we may
> want it to mean something else in the future.
I think the semantics of a "parallel loop" is:
If my loop, I hereby state as "parallel", has loop-carried dependencies,
I...
2013 Jan 29
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] parallel loop metadata
....parallel" or similar and we can add a separate one for
> the assumed_dep later on. This one would support the truly parallel
> loops (at least OpenMP for and OpenCL WIloops) where no compiler
> checking at all can be assumed by the programmer.
Will parallel always be synonymous with no_interiteration_dependencies? I'm sightly worried that 'parallel' seems too much like a directive, and we may want it to mean something else in the future.
-Hal
>
> Any objections? Paul Redmond?
>
> --
> --Pekka
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailin...
2013 Jan 29
5
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] parallel loop metadata
On 01/29/2013 08:22 PM, Dan Gohman wrote:
> "Ignore assumed dependencies" is shaky semantics. I haven't seen anything
> explicitly spell out which dependencies a compiler is guaranteed to detect.
> How can users use such a directive safely in a loop which has dependencies?
> I understand that this is what icc's documentation says, but I'm wondering
> if