search for: vectorization

The following series adds initial vector support for PowerPC64. On POWER9, flac --best is about 3.3x faster. Amitay Isaacs (2): Add m4 macro to check for C __attribute__ features Check if compiler supports target attribute on ppc64 Anton Blanchard (5): configure.ac: Remove SPE detection code configure.ac: Add VSX enable/disable configure.ac: Fix FLAC__CPU_PPC on little endian, and add

...ke the most of hardware capabilities. [4] "A Case for MVPs: Mixed-Precision Vector Processors", Albert Ou, Quan Nguyen, Yunsup Lee, Krste Asanović, http://hwacha.org/papers/hwacha-mvp-prism2014.pdf ## Producing vector code It is intended that vector code is primarily produced via loop vectorization and other IR-level auto-vectorizers (e.g., the region vectorizer), not written by hand. Supporting loop vectorization is of highest priority. The groundwork for loop vectorization should be useful for other kinds of automatic vectorization as well, but loop vectorization will be implemented first....

Hello, I'm new on this list. First of all, thank you to all the developers of this great project! At the moment there is only an application that keeps me on both macos and windows, its name is PWGL a free environment for computer assisted composition in openGL. (http://www2.siba.fi/PWGL/) I'm running Ubuntu 8.04 and wine 0.9.59. I have to say that I also installed vcrun2005 and

...; [4] "A Case for MVPs: Mixed-Precision Vector Processors", Albert Ou, Quan > Nguyen, Yunsup Lee, Krste Asanović, > http://hwacha.org/papers/hwacha-mvp-prism2014.pdf > > > ## Producing vector code > > It is intended that vector code is primarily produced via loop > vectorization and other IR-level auto-vectorizers (e.g., the region > vectorizer), not written by hand. Supporting loop vectorization is of > highest priority. The groundwork for loop vectorization should be useful > for other kinds of automatic vectorization as well, but loop vectorization > will be...

On 13 April 2018 at 16:52, Robin Kruppe <robin.kruppe at gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 April 2018 at 14:37, Graham Hunter <Graham.Hunter at arm.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Nice to see another group tackling length agnostic vectorization :) >> >> I'm still reading through all the details, but I do have one initial >> question related to the vector type; why not use the same mechanism Arm is >> proposing for SVE? >> >> We chose the format "<n x m x <ty>>" to represent two...

As some of you may know, I committed my basic-block autovectorization pass a few days ago. I encourage anyone interested to try it out (pass -vectorize to opt or -mllvm -vectorize to clang) and provide feedback. Especially in combination with -unroll-allow-partial, I have observed some significant benchmark speedups, but, I have also observed some significant slowdow...

...Could you please tell me what are these lines exactly trying to say. Could you please tell me what algorithm is the LLVM loop vectorizer using (maybe the algorithm is described in a paper) - I currently found only 2 presentations on this topic: http://llvm.org/devmtg/2013-11/slides/Rotem-Vectorization.pdf and https://archive.fosdem.org/2014/schedule/event/llvmautovec/attachments/audio/321/export/events/attachments/llvmautovec/audio/321/AutoVectorizationLLVM.pdf . Thank you very much, Alex

On 5/28/19 3:31 PM, Philip Reames via cfe-dev wrote: > I generally like the idea of having support in IR for vectorization of > custom functions.  I have several use cases which would benefit from this. > > I'd suggest a couple of reframings to the IR representation though. > > First, this should probably be specified as metadata/attribute on a > function declaration.  Allowing the callsite varian...

Dear all, This RFC is a proposal to provide auto-vectorization functionality for user provided vector functions. The proposal is a modification of an RFC that I have sent out a couple of months ago, with the title `[RFC] Re-implementing -fveclib with OpenMP` (see http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-December/128426.html). The previous RFC is to be co...

...w On 13 April 2018 at 16:52, Robin Kruppe <robin.kruppe at gmail.com<mailto:robin.kruppe at gmail.com>> wrote: On 13 April 2018 at 14:37, Graham Hunter <Graham.Hunter at arm.com<mailto:Graham.Hunter at arm.com>> wrote: Hi, Nice to see another group tackling length agnostic vectorization :) I'm still reading through all the details, but I do have one initial question related to the vector type; why not use the same mechanism Arm is proposing for SVE? We chose the format "<n x m x <ty>>" to represent two crucial concepts: arbitrary length vectors with the...

Is there some (much) more efficient way to do this? VECTOR=c(3,2,4,5,5,3,3,5,1,6,6); NEWVECTOR=VECTOR[1]; for(i in 1:(length(VECTOR)-1)) { if((identical(VECTOR[i], VECTOR[i+1]))==FALSE){ NEWVECTOR=c(NEWVECTOR,VECTOR[i+1])} } > VECTOR [1] 3 2 4 5 5 3 3 5 1 6 6 > NEWVECTOR [1] 3 2 4 5 3 5 1 6 _______________________________ Atte Tenkanen University of Turku, Finland

...===================================== Goal: ----- We propose to extend the innermost Loop Vectorizer to also handle outerloops (cf.[1]). Our aim is to best leverage the efforts already invested in the existing innermost Loop Vectorizer rather than introduce a separate pass dedicated to outerloop vectorization. This proposal will support explicit vector programming of loops and functions [2]. It also facilitates evaluating multiple vectorization candidates, including both outer and innermost loops, to choose the most profitable ones. Background: ----------- The current Loop Vectorizer is confined to ha...

Proposal for function vectorization and loop vectorization with function calls ============================================================================== Intel Corporation (3/2/2016) This is a proposal for an initial work towards Clang and LLVM implementation of vectorizing a function annotated with OpenMP 4.5's "#prag...

Hi, I'm trying to build llvm (git monorepo) on Ubuntu 18.04 with EXPENSIVE_CHECKS enabled and running into various errors compiling SourceMgr.cpp, depending on which host compiler I use. For example with GCC: $ CC=gcc-8 CXX=g++-8 cmake -GNinja -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -DLLVM_ENABLE_EXPENSIVE_CHECKS=ON ~/git/llvm-project/llvm/ && ninja ... [89/2690] Building CXX object

...es things a bit strange - I am still trying to understand the code. Is it possible to explain to me where in LoopVectorize.cpp are created 2 vector.body blocks? I know that InnerLoopVectorizer::vectorize() calls InnerLoopVectorizer::createEmptyLoop() which creates the blocks required for vectorization, but I have difficulties to follow the classes instantiations. I ask because in fact, I would prefer having only one "vector.body" block for the above C program, as it was happening with LoopVectorize.cpp version of Nov 2015. Thank you very much, Alex

On 5/29/19 1:52 PM, Philip Reames wrote: > On 5/28/19 7:55 PM, Finkel, Hal J. wrote: >> On 5/28/19 3:31 PM, Philip Reames via cfe-dev wrote: >>> I generally like the idea of having support in IR for vectorization of >>> custom functions.  I have several use cases which would benefit from this. >>> >>> I'd suggest a couple of reframings to the IR representation though. >>> >>> First, this should probably be specified as metadata/attribute on a >>> fun...

Hmm. What about the errors I quoted from using clang-7 (starting about a third of the way down my email, sorry if they got kinda lost in all the noise)? Thanks, Jay. On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 20:00, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > Looks to me like a bug in GCC's constexpr+_GLIBCXX_CONCEPT_CHECKS support. Small test case: > > $ g++-8 test.cpp -std=c++2a

...; correctly unrolled, but is not vectorized by -bb-vectorize. (I used > llvm 3.1svn) > I attached the test case so you can see what is going wrong there. > > 2012/2/3 Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> > As some of you may know, I committed my basic-block > autovectorization > pass a few days ago. I encourage anyone interested to try it > out (pass > -vectorize to opt or -mllvm -vectorize to clang) and provide > feedback. > Especially in combination with -unroll-allow-partial, I have > observed >...

...khin at apple.com [mailto:mzolotukhin at apple.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 2:42 PM To: Tian, Xinmin <xinmin.tian at intel.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Clang Dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>; llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Proposal for function vectorization and loop vectorization with function calls Hi Tian, Thanks for the writeup, it sounds very interesting! Please find some questions/comments inline: > On Mar 2, 2016, at 11:49 AM, Tian, Xinmin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Proposal for function vectorizatio...

Hello, Is it intended that is.vector(...) and is(..., "vector") do not always give identical results? is.vector() works as documented ('is.vector' returns 'FALSE' if 'x' has any attributes except names.) Thus, A <- array(1:2, 1:2) M <- diag(2) is.vector(M) # FALSE, as documented # and is.vector(A) # FALSE, as documented # however is(M,