Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "user_func".
2009 Oct 09
3
[LLVMdev] Instructions that cannot be duplicated
Is inlining (which duplicates code) of functions containing OpenCL style
barriers legal?or e.g.
if you had some changed phase ordering where you had
if (cond) {
S1;
}
call user_func() // user_func has a barrier buried inside it.
you do tail splitting
if (cond) {
S1;
call user_func()
} else {
call user_func();
}
now you inline -- oops now you might have a problem
so do you want IPA to propagate the barrier bit to the call sites?
you could do inlining before tail s...
2009 Oct 09
0
[LLVMdev] Instructions that cannot be duplicated
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at mit.edu> wrote:
> IMO Jeff's solution is the cleanest, simplest way to get code that
> works. Just generate a separate function for every barrier in the
> program, and mark it noinline. This way the instruction pointers will
> be unique to the barrier.
No, this gets rather nasty: to support an instruction like this, it
2009 Oct 09
0
[LLVMdev] Instructions that cannot be duplicated
...k.
-- Mon Ping
On Oct 8, 2009, at 11:17 PM, Vinod Grover wrote:
> Is inlining (which duplicates code) of functions containing OpenCL
> style barriers legal?
> or e.g.
>
> if you had some changed phase ordering where you had
>
> if (cond) {
> S1;
> }
> call user_func() // user_func has a barrier buried inside it.
>
> you do tail splitting
>
> if (cond) {
> S1;
> call user_func()
> } else {
> call user_func();
> }
>
> now you inline -- oops now you might have a problem
>
> so do you want IPA to propagate the barrie...
2009 Oct 08
3
[LLVMdev] Instructions that cannot be duplicated
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Devang Patel <devang.patel at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jeffrey Yasskin [mailto:jyasskin at google.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 11:09 AM
>>> To: Villmow, Micah