search for: targetvectordata

...hat the vectorizer > may have after we finish with the first phase. I suspect that we may > have to refactor some functionality out of TLI. Okay, if you're referring to llvm::TargetLowering, then yes that should have a whole slew of methods copied out to a new object (I'm imagining TargetVectorData with a getter in TargetData) that would answer those questions. Exposing TargetLowering itself is a bad idea since its interface refers to MCExpr* and SDValue and other things that genuinely don't make sense at the IR level. >> Currently TLI is only available in LLC. I suggest that w...

...ata is useful, but not enough for vectorization. > > I think an interface should be designed on top of the current sets of > data that will encompass what we may want at the target level and we > can make our decisions based on that. Yes. I plan to start working on this new interface (TargetVectorData ?) as soon as we merge the tools. > Specific names or making "X > class available to Y passes at Z level" can probably wait. > yep. > -eric Thanks :)

Is it possible to not make it 'Target*'? I'm spending a lot of time moving TargetData out, would hate to have to do it again at some point in the future for TargetVectorData. :) > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Nadav Rotem > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 1:23 PM > To: Eric Christopher > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Mailing List > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LLVM Lo...

On Oct 5, 2012, at 12:08 AM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > I absolutely think that we should have something like TargetData (now DataLayout) but for the vector types and operations. However, I'm not familiar with "Target Lowering Interface". Could you explain? I agree. Once we make the codegen accessible to the IR-level passes we need to start talking about

On Oct 5, 2012, at 2:11 PM, "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > Is it possible to not make it 'Target*'? I'm spending a lot of time moving TargetData out, would hate to have to do it again at some point in the future for TargetVectorData. :) There is an important difference here (and a common point of confusion) between TargetData and the the stuff Nadav is talking about. TargetData has *never* really been about modeling stuff at the "lib target" level: it's a concrete class that can't be extended by a target, a...

Nadav, >> Possibly, though I think TargetData should still be able to get you >> what you want. > > > TargetData does not have enough information for vectorization. For example, we need to ask the target if it has efficient "cos4" implementation or the cost of 'mult_4xf32'. We need lots of target specific information for deciding when to vectorize and which

Hi Eric, On Oct 5, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: >> Regarding TLI. So, DAGCombine, CodeGenPrepare, LoopReduce all use the TLI >> interface which can answer questions such as "is this operation supported ?" >> or "is this type legal". This is a subset of what we need in a vectorized. >> We can discuss other