Displaying 9 results from an estimated 9 matches for "usesi".
Did you mean:
uses
2011 Nov 17
2
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
...> + for (unsigned ss = 0; J != E&& ss<= SearchLimit; ++J, ++ss) {
> + // Determine if J uses I, if so, exit the loop.
This loop is way to big. You can extract here also a couple of
subfunctions. I will review this after this in etail more readable.
> + bool usesI = false;
> + for (User::op_iterator i = J->op_begin(), e = J->op_end();
> + i != e; ++i) {
> + Value *v = *i;
> + if (I == v ||
> + (!FastDep&& users.count(v))) {
Why a newline here? It should not break the 80 col l...
2011 Nov 21
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
...d ss = 0; J != E&& ss<= SearchLimit; ++J, ++ss) {
> > + // Determine if J uses I, if so, exit the loop.
>
> This loop is way to big. You can extract here also a couple of
> subfunctions. I will review this after this in etail more readable.
> > + bool usesI = false;
> > + for (User::op_iterator i = J->op_begin(), e = J->op_end();
> > + i != e; ++i) {
> > + Value *v = *i;
> > + if (I == v ||
> > + (!FastDep&& users.count(v))) {
>
> Why a newline her...
2011 Nov 16
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
Tobias, et al.,
Attached is the my autovectorization pass. I've fixed a bug that appears
when using -bb-vectorize-aligned-only, fixed some 80-col violations,
etc., and at least on x86_64, all test cases pass except for a few; and
all of these failures look like instruction-selection bugs. For example:
MultiSource/Applications/ClamAV - fails to compile shared_sha256.c with
an error: error in
2011 Nov 15
3
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
Tobias,
I've attached the latest version of my autovectorization patch. I was
able to add support for using the ScalarEvolution analysis for
load/store pairing (thanks for your help!). This led to a modest
performance increase and a modest compile-time increase. This version
also has a cutoff as you suggested (although the default value is set
high (4000 instructions between pairs) because
2011 Dec 02
5
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
...nstsCompatible(Instruction *I, Instruction *J,
> + bool IsSimpleLoadStore);
> +
> + void trackUsesOfI(DenseSet<Value *> &Users,
> + AliasSetTracker&WriteSet, Instruction *I,
> + Instruction *J, bool&UsesI, bool UpdateUsers = true,
> + std::multimap<Value *, Value *> *LoadMoveSet = 0);
> +
> + void computePairsConnectedTo(
> + std::multimap<Value *, Value *> &CandidatePairs,
> + std::vector<Value *&g...
2011 Dec 14
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
...n *I, Instruction *J,
> > + bool IsSimpleLoadStore);
> > +
> > + void trackUsesOfI(DenseSet<Value *> &Users,
> > + AliasSetTracker&WriteSet, Instruction *I,
> > + Instruction *J, bool&UsesI, bool UpdateUsers = true,
> > + std::multimap<Value *, Value *> *LoadMoveSet = 0);
> > +
> > + void computePairsConnectedTo(
> > + std::multimap<Value *, Value *> &CandidatePairs,
> > +...
2011 Nov 23
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 21:22 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 11:55 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote:
> > Tobias,
> >
> > I've attached an updated patch. It contains a few bug fixes and many
> > (refactoring and coding-convention) changes inspired by your comments.
> >
> > I'm currently trying to fix the bug responsible for causing a compile
2011 Dec 02
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
...n *I, Instruction *J,
> > + bool IsSimpleLoadStore);
> > +
> > + void trackUsesOfI(DenseSet<Value *> &Users,
> > + AliasSetTracker&WriteSet, Instruction *I,
> > + Instruction *J, bool&UsesI, bool UpdateUsers = true,
> > + std::multimap<Value *, Value *> *LoadMoveSet = 0);
> > +
> > + void computePairsConnectedTo(
> > + std::multimap<Value *, Value *> &CandidatePairs,
> > +...
2011 Nov 22
5
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 11:55 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote:
> Tobias,
>
> I've attached an updated patch. It contains a few bug fixes and many
> (refactoring and coding-convention) changes inspired by your comments.
>
> I'm currently trying to fix the bug responsible for causing a compile
> failure when compiling
>