search for: parallelloop

...t seem very elegant. The parallelization information in the IR should be general and orthogonal. I do realize that boxing the loops into procedures in the frontend will initially inhibit loop optimizations, but that can be resolved with some work. Ideally, I'd like to have a different class (ParallelLoop, maybe) altogether representing parallel loops and make the relevant passes aware of it. More work, yes, but I think such an approach will pay off eventually. [1] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-September/053798.html -- Sanjoy Das http://playingwithpointers.com

...you convert LoopInfo, SE, etc. into module-level passes? Would you inline these functions early with some special attached semantics? If the second, how is this different from attaching the special semantics using intrinsics or metadata? > Ideally, I'd like to have a different class > (ParallelLoop, maybe) altogether representing parallel loops and make > the relevant passes aware of it. More work, yes, but I think such an > approach will pay off eventually. Can you be more specific? Pay off how? Thanks again, Hal > > [1] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-S...

Hal, Andrey, Alexey, >From the LLVM design viewpoint, there is a fundamental problem with both Hal's approach and the Intel approach: both are quite language-specific. OpenMP is a particular parallel language, with particular constructs (e.g., parallel regions) and semantics. LLVM is a language-neutral IR and infrastructure and OpenMP-specific concepts should not creep into it. I've