search for: sallenave

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 4:34 PM Olivier Sallenave <ol.sall at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Thanks for your feedback. I would prefer not to write a new AA. Can't we > directly implement that traversal in BasicAA? > Can I ask why? Outside of the "well, it's another pass", i mean? BasicAA is stateless, s...

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:54 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:39 PM Olivier H Sallenave <ohsallen at us.ibm.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have the following C loop to vectorize: >> >> struct box { >> double* source; >> }; >> >> void test(double* restrict result, struct box my_struct, int len) >> { >>...

...Thanks again, Samuel Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote on 07/31/2014 09:54:55 AM: > From: Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> > To: Samuel F Antao/Watson/IBM at IBMUS > Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, Olivier H > Sallenave/Watson/IBM at IBMUS > Date: 07/31/2014 09:55 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] FPOpFusion = Fast and Multiply-and-add combines > > Hi Samuel, > > On 30 July 2014 22:37, Samuel F Antao <sfantao at us.ibm.com> wrote: > > In the DAGCombiner, during the combination of mul and ad...

...o can shed some light on this? Thanks, Samuel Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote on 08/06/2014 02:30:17 PM: > From: Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> > To: Samuel F Antao/Watson/IBM at IBMUS > Cc: Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com>, Olivier H Sallenave/ > Watson/IBM at IBMUS, "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Date: 08/06/2014 02:30 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] FPOpFusion = Fast and Multiply-and-add combines > > Hi Samuel, > I don't think clang follows what gcc does regarding FMA - at least &...

Hi, I have the following C loop to vectorize: struct box { double* source; }; void test(double* restrict result, struct box my_struct, int len) { for (int i=0 ; i<len; i++) { result[i] = my_struct.source[i] * my_struct.source[i]; } } There are two references in the loop, result[i] (restrict) and my_struct.source[i] (readonly). The compiler should easily figure out that

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > so just using pointer types instead of i64 will help common cases, but > will not address the general issue. Now part of this does some down to > using array parameters as a substitute for byval/direct parameters. As I > recall, this was done because it allowed a natural partial decomposition >

Hi all, The AllowFPOpFusion option passed to a target can currently take 3 different values, Fast, Standard or Strict (TargetOptions.h), being Standard the default. In the DAGCombiner, during the combination of mul and add/subtract into multiply-and-add/subtract, this option is expected to be Fast in order to enable the combine. This means, that by default no multiply-and-add opcodes are going

Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote on 16.03.2015 17:56:20: > If you want to do it at a clang level, the right thing to do is to > fixup the ABI lowerings for pointers to keep them pointers in this case. > So this is an artifact of the way that we pass structures, and > constructing a general solution at the ABI level might be tricky. > I've cc'd Uli, who did most