search for: omping

I even tried following; int main(int argc, char **argv) { const int size = 1000000; float a[size], b[size],c[size]; #pragma omp simd for (int i=0; i<size; ++i) { a[i]=2; b[i]=3; c[i]=4; c[i]= a[i] + b[i]; } return 0; } but the output with and without openmp simd is same. why is that so? On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 12:01

i changed my code to following; #pragma omp simd for (int i=0; i<size; ++i) { a[i]=2; b[i]=3; c[i]=4; c[i]= a[i] + b[i]; printf("c value %f",c[i]); } still no effect of omp simd? On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 12:26 AM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > The for loop has no effect on the observable behavior of

hello, i am trying to optimize omp simd loop as follows int main(int argc, char **argv) { const int size = 1000000; float a[size], b[size],c[size]; #pragma omp simd for (int i=0; i<size; ++i) { c[i]= a[i] + b[i]; } return 0; } i run it using the following command; g++ -O0 --std=c++14 -fopenmp-simd lab.cpp -Iinclude -S -o lab.s

Hi, I am using LLVM 3.6.1 to test the following code: #include <omp.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> int main() { int tid, nthreads; #pragma omp parallel sections private(nthreads, tid) { #pragma omp section { tid = omp_get_thread_num(); printf("Hello, tid = %d\n ", tid); } #pragma omp section { tid = omp_get_thread_num();

Hi All, We'd like to make a proposal for OpenMP representation in LLVM IR. Our goal is to reach an agreement in the community on a simple, complete and extensible representation of OpenMP language constructs in LLVM IR. Hopefully, this would serve as a common ground and would enable further development of OpenMP support both in Clang and LLVM compiler toolchain. We seek feedback on the

Not to distract, but the word, `procedurization' is not an English word. It's just leaping out at me when it is either procedure(s) (noun) or proceduralize (verb). Even processes would make sense. I couldn't help myself because the word was distracting. - Marc P.S. Not that my vote counts, but I'm more in the camp of Hal whose approach to tackling the parallelization

Andrey, While I think that it will be relatively easy to have the intrinsics serve as code-motion barriers for other code that might be threads sensitive (like other external function calls), we would need to think through exactly how this would work. The easiest thing would be to make the intrinsics have having unmodeled side effects, although we might want to do something more intelligent.

Hi Francesco, a bit more information. GCC veclib is implemented based on GCC VectorABI for declare simd as well. For name mangling, we have to follow certain rules of C/C++ (e.g. prefix needs to _ZVG ....). David Majnemer who is the owner and stakeholder for approval for Clang and LLVM. Also, we need to pay attention to GCC compatibility. I would suggest you look into how GCC VectorABI can

Hi Xinmin, I have updated the clang patch using the standard name mangling you suggested - I was not fully aware of the C++ mangling convention “_ZVG”. I am using “D” for 64-bit NEON and “Q” for 128-bit NEON, which makes NEON vector symbols look as follows: _ZVGQN2v__Z1fd _ZVGDN2v__Z1ff _ZVGQN4v__Z1ff Here “Q” means -> NEON 128-bit, “D” means -> NEON 64-bit Please notice that although

Dear all, I have just created a couple of differential reviews to enable the vectorisation of loops that have function calls to routines marked with “#pragma omp declare simd”. They can be (re)viewed here: * https://reviews.llvm.org/D27249 * https://reviews.llvm.org/D27250 The current implementation allows the loop vectorizer to generate vector code for source file as: #pragma omp declare

Thanks for the reply! It sounds like LLVM IR is being considered for optimizations in OpenMP constructs. There seems to be plans regarding improvement of LLVM IR Framework for providing things required for OpenMP / flang(?) Are there any design considerations which contain pros and cons about using the MLIR vs LLVM IR for various OpenMP related optimizations/ transformations? The latest RFC [

Andrey, I am very glad to see that you're interested in working on this! I have a few comments: As you may know, this is the third such proposal over the past two months, one by me (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-August/052472.html) and the other, based somewhat on mine, by Sanjoy (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-September/053798.html) In order for your

Hi, I have few questions / concerns regarding the design of OpenMP dialect in MLIR that is currently being implemented, mainly for the f18 compiler. Below, I summarize the current state of various efforts in clang / f18 / MLIR / LLVM regarding this. Feel free to add to the list in case I have missed something. 1. [May 2019] An OpenMPIRBuilder in LLVM was proposed for flang and clang frontends.

Hi everybody, I'm trying to develop an R package with Fortran and OpenMP. I wrote a simple hello world but I'm not able to set the number of threads. I found this old email chain <http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/Set-the-number-of-threads-using-openmp-with-C-td2284685.html> and I tried to set my compile instructions accordingly but i had no luck. *This is my makevars:*

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > (Mostly trying to re-focus the thread somewhat) > > Given support from Mehdi, Renato, and especially Hal who has contributed > specifically in this area to LLVM as a whole, and no strong objections from > significant contributors (I feel like the primary concerns Intel raised have > been

Hi Francesco, This is a huge RFC and I don't think we can discuss all of it at the same time, at least not in a constructive manner. What ends up happening is that people ignore the thread and developers get upset. So, I'll start with the summary, to make sure the overall assumptions in the RFC match the ones I have about it, then we can delve into details. I also think we should not

On 6 February 2016 at 01:02, C Bergström <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I worked on the port of llvm-OpenMP-formally-known-as-Intel to Aarch64 > - can it be included there as well? (I'm not sure what's precisely > involved - I'm willing to do my best fixing any bugs which pop up - Hi Chris, That'd entail me enabling them for AArch64. I have to say, I've

Hi All, This is a short summary of news and new developments related to OpenMP support in clang / llvm: * ANL (1) and Pathscale contributed OpenMP patch re-based from clang trunk (original version of the patch is based on clang 3.3 release). This is currently under code review, and will be committed to a separate repository: https://github.com/clang-omp/clang_trunk. Kudos to Hal Finkel, Chris

Reply to Kiran Chandramohan: > You are welcome to participate, provide feedback and criticism to change the design as well as to contribute to the implementation. Thank you Kiran. > But the latest is what is there in the RFC in discourse. I have used this as reference for the response. > We did a study of a few constructs and clauses which was shared as mails to flang-dev and the

Hello, I am getting the following error while trying to build a benchmark with a custom function pass: clang -Xclang -fopenmp=libomp -Xclang -load -Xclang my_lib.so file.c error: unknown argument: '-fopenmp=libomp' If I use this instead: clang -Xclang -fopenmp=libomp -Xclang -load -Xclang my_lib.so file.c I get the error: fatal error: 'omp.h' file not found I am not