search for: parallizationmetadata

...* Metadata is never mutated or dropped > > I think it is better to have an analysis pass that simply provides a > consistent "view" of the current !parallel nodes instead of one that > mutates the IR in order to make it consistent. By addRequired<> ing > it (called ParallizationMetadata currently) in the lowering pass and > only indirectly accessing the metadata through the analysis pass, we > are assured that we don't parallelize regions with inconsistent > metadata. My rationale for proposing the self-consistent metadata solution was that it seemed to be the safes...

...t some input on the design early on to prevent grief later. I'd especially like some input on the following points: * Not dropping any metadata I think it is better to have an analysis pass that provides a consistent view of the current !parallel nodes. By addRequired<> ing it (called ParallizationMetadata currently) in the lowering pass and only indirectly accessing the metadata through the analysis pass, we can assure ourselves that we don't lower unsafe regions. * No information is optional It simplifies the implementation greatly if we assume that things like task affinity etc. aren't o...

...on the following points: * Metadata is never mutated or dropped I think it is better to have an analysis pass that simply provides a consistent "view" of the current !parallel nodes instead of one that mutates the IR in order to make it consistent. By addRequired<> ing it (called ParallizationMetadata currently) in the lowering pass and only indirectly accessing the metadata through the analysis pass, we are assured that we don't parallelize regions with inconsistent metadata. * No information is optional It simplifies the implementation greatly if we change the spec to assume this. I do...

Hi Hal, > My rationale for proposing the self-consistent metadata solution was > that it seemed to be the safest option. If we simply insist that all > relevant passes use the ParallizationMetadata pass, without any > verification, then we could end up with parallelization-unaware passes > silently miscompiling code when parallelization is enabled. Do you have > a way of avoiding that? I'm still not very clear about this. Either a pass understands (and looks at) the paralleliza...

...13 Sep 2012 09:01:18 +0530 Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > Hi Hal, > > > My rationale for proposing the self-consistent metadata solution was > > that it seemed to be the safest option. If we simply insist that all > > relevant passes use the ParallizationMetadata pass, without any > > verification, then we could end up with parallelization-unaware > > passes silently miscompiling code when parallelization is enabled. > > Do you have a way of avoiding that? > > I'm still not very clear about this. Either a pass understands (and...