Displaying 10 results from an estimated 10 matches for "nomemf".
Did you mean:
nomem
2013 Dec 05
3
[LLVMdev] Loads moving across barriers
...is OK since it’s constant. Private address space is supposed to be totally inaccessible from other workitems, so parallel modifications aren’t a concern. The others require explicit synchronization which noalias would need to be aware of.
>>> FWIW, it seems generally useful to me to have a nomemfence function attribute and intrinsic property. We should avoid memory optimization (and possibly other optimization) across these regardless of alias analysis.
>>>
>> I'm think I'll try implementing this. Ideally it would be parameterized over the address space, so it makes m...
2014 Jan 04
2
[LLVMdev] Loads moving across barriers
...9;ve seen expressed so far seem much more appropriate for attaching to a noduplicate call to an intrinsic... But I think I'll need to read this thread again to re-absorb much of the information after the holidays. =]
>
> I think it would be too misleading and bizarre to define a memfence/nomemfence attribute that does not relate to memory fence instructions. In the future, I do see a potential use for such an attribute, but that discussion belongs in a different thread and would be premature (we would have to talk about alias info on calls).
I’m not sure what you mean by this. I was neve...
2013 Dec 05
0
[LLVMdev] Loads moving across barriers
...K since it’s constant. Private address space is supposed to be totally inaccessible from other workitems, so parallel modifications aren’t a concern. The others require explicit synchronization which noalias would need to be aware of.
>>>> FWIW, it seems generally useful to me to have a nomemfence function attribute and intrinsic property. We should avoid memory optimization (and possibly other optimization) across these regardless of alias analysis.
>>>>
>>> I'm think I'll try implementing this. Ideally it would be parameterized over the address space, so i...
2013 Dec 04
2
[LLVMdev] Loads moving across barriers
...you do is OK since it’s constant. Private address space is supposed to be totally inaccessible from other workitems, so parallel modifications aren’t a concern. The others require explicit synchronization which noalias would need to be aware of.
> FWIW, it seems generally useful to me to have a nomemfence function attribute and intrinsic property. We should avoid memory optimization (and possibly other optimization) across these regardless of alias analysis.
>
I'm think I'll try implementing this. Ideally it would be parameterized
over the address space, so it makes more sense for it...
2013 Dec 05
0
[LLVMdev] Loads moving across barriers
...do is OK since it’s constant. Private address space is supposed to be totally inaccessible from other workitems, so parallel modifications aren’t a concern. The others require explicit synchronization which noalias would need to be aware of.
>> FWIW, it seems generally useful to me to have a nomemfence function attribute and intrinsic property. We should avoid memory optimization (and possibly other optimization) across these regardless of alias analysis.
>>
> I'm think I'll try implementing this. Ideally it would be parameterized over the address space, so it makes more sen...
2013 Dec 21
2
[LLVMdev] Loads moving across barriers
...nce it’s constant. Private address space is supposed to be totally inaccessible from other workitems, so parallel modifications aren’t a concern. The others require explicit synchronization which noalias would need to be aware of.
>>>>> FWIW, it seems generally useful to me to have a nomemfence function attribute and intrinsic property. We should avoid memory optimization (and possibly other optimization) across these regardless of alias analysis.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm think I'll try implementing this. Ideally it would be parameterized over the address spa...
2013 Dec 27
3
[LLVMdev] Loads moving across barriers
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote:
> Others can weigh in here. This is just my understanding. Attribute
> propagation has to be optional because we can’t assume inter-procedural
> optimization runs for correct codegen. What if the memfence resides in a
> different module?
>
> In the case of noduplicate, the only reason to propagate
2013 Nov 11
0
[LLVMdev] Loads moving across barriers
...hing you do is OK since it’s constant. Private address space is supposed to be totally inaccessible from other workitems, so parallel modifications aren’t a concern. The others require explicit synchronization which noalias would need to be aware of.
FWIW, it seems generally useful to me to have a nomemfence function attribute and intrinsic property. We should avoid memory optimization (and possibly other optimization) across these regardless of alias analysis.
-Andy
2013 Nov 09
3
[LLVMdev] Loads moving across barriers
On Nov 9, 2013, at 3:14 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps you're instead trying to say that with certain address spaces "noalias" (and by inference, "restrict" at the language level) has a different semantic model than other address spaces? While it's less worrisome than the first interpretation, I still don't really
2014 Jun 19
6
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Add compiler scheduling barriers
Hi all,
I'm currently working on implementing ACLE extensions for ARM. There
are some memory barrier intrinsics, i.e.__dsb and __isb that require
the compiler not to reorder instructions around their corresponding
built-in intrinsics(__builtin_arm_dsb, __builtin_arm_isb), including
non-memory-access instructions.[1] This is currently not possible.
It is sometimes useful to prevent the