similar to: Polly loop offloading to Accelerator

Thank You. i used -polly-ast-detect-parallel but there is no coincident info generated; my c code is simple vec-sum as follows; #include <stdio.h> int a[2048], b[2048], c[2048]; foo () { int i; for (i=0; i<2048; i++) { a[i]=b[5] + c[i]; } } i executed following commands; $clang -S -emit-llvm vec-sum.cpp -march=native -O3 -mllvm -disable-llvm-optzns -o vec-sum.s $opt -S

All, I'm trying to refactor LoopVectorize such that it has better conformance to VPlan vision going forward (http://www.llvm.org/docs/Proposals/VectorizationPlan.html). All VP*Recipe class definitions are now moved to VPlan.h, and I have a patch under review to move LoopVectorizationPlanner class out of LoopVectorize.cpp (https://reviews.llvm.org/D41420). Next thing I'm working on is

Amara, >I support this direction Thanks for the support. >but are there actually any real world workloads where gather/scatter scalarisation would be worth it, on any micro-architecture? If we don’t have examples and the compile time cost is non-negligible then I think we’d still like to keep the early >bailouts in some form.’ It's not like I have specific application code in

> On 5 Jan 2018, at 21:01, Saito, Hideki via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > All, > > I'm trying to refactor LoopVectorize such that it has better conformance to VPlan vision going forward > (http://www.llvm.org/docs/Proposals/VectorizationPlan.html). All VP*Recipe class definitions are now > moved to VPlan.h, and I have a patch under review

OS - CentOS4 PostgreSQL = 8.0.3 I think that I need to locate a custom pam module to use in pg_hba.conf that will allow phpPgAdmin to authenticate users against /etc/password (shadow). I cannot seem to find a straight forward reference to such a beast either in the documentation or on the web. The pam modules that I have found through google seem to be intended to allow one to authenticate

Dear List, I am a little unsure how to structure my model and was after some advice. I am a little unsure if this question is appropriate for this list, if it is not please just delete and accept my apologise. I have 10 factors that are categorical variables and 5 levels of response variables - A B C D - Factors RESPONSE? 2 2 2 2 1 2 4 2 2 2 2

On 01/05/2018 06:28 PM, Saito, Hideki wrote: > Amara, > >> I support this direction > Thanks for the support. > >> but are there actually any real world workloads where gather/scatter scalarisation would be worth it, on any micro-architecture? If we don’t have examples and the compile time cost is non-negligible then I think we’d still like to keep the early >bailouts in

Thanks, Hal. I plan to post a patch w/o HW Legality early bailout first. That should enable further discussion on where the initial very high cost for "illegal masked load/store/gather/scatter" should be coming from --- like should LoopVectorize provide it? Or should it be provided by TTI? I prefer the latter (TTI) but the first revision of the patch will intentionally do the former

What LoopVectorize.cpp has are the following. Each function may have to have a separate consolidation discussion. I'm bringing up getpointerOperand() since I actually found multiple instances defined/used. DependenceAnalysis.cpp has isLoadOrStore(). LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp has getAddressSpaceOperand(). I'm sure there are others that might be worth discussing within this thread or a follow

Tom, Let me go a little deeper. Xinmin's answer is correct but a bit over-simplified. There are parts of "legality" and "cost model" that OpenMP SIMD code has to go through, and current LV is rather unclear about it ---- due to historical reasons ---- and I'm trying to resolve them one small step at a time. See

Hi all, I am currently looking into how "#pragma omp for simd" is actually recognized in llvm. To my knowledge, clang will parse it and set metadata in IR to indicate this force-vectorization hint and later optimization passes would read it and vectorize the marked loop. Therefore, the loop should be vectorized even the compiler think it might not be safe to do so? So my

# R for Windows will not send your bug report automatically. # Please copy the bug report (after finishing it) to # your favorite email program and send it to # # r-bugs at r-project.org # ###################################################### The R documentation for "is.R" says "## 'which()' only exists in R:" This is no longer true. In S-Plus 8.0 >

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 23:20, Philip Reames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I don't care about the convention, but I'm really not sure it's worth the churn which would result in the code base. The hurtle which needs cleared here is not "is it a better naming style", but "is the disruption implied by changing to the new convention

On 2/18/2019 4:15 AM, Michael Platings via llvm-dev wrote: > Taking my previous example [1]: > > InnerLoopVectorizer LB(L, PSE, LI, DT, TLI, TTI, AC, ORE, VF.Width, IC, > &LVL, &CM); > > If we imagine that over time it evolves such that 50% of the variables have been renamed to camelBack versions of the type names, then it will look like this: > >

> On Jan 17, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Jonas Devlieghere via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > As mentioned by Adrian in the comment you linked, I too am looking at DWARFv5 > accelerator tables in LLVM. > > To give you some background: my motivation is that I want to upstream support > for (Apple style) accelerator tables in llvm-dsymutil, Some background for

Hello, Michael, I'd like to ask if we can enhance the LoopVectorize LLVM module (I am currently using a version from Jul 2016). More exactly: - do you envision to support in the near future LLVM IR gather and scatter intrinsics (as described at http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#llvm-masked-gather-intrinsics and scatter)? I see you have defined some methods that should

FWIW I'm completely on board with everything Adrian has said in this thread :) -eric On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:00 AM Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Jan 17, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Jonas Devlieghere via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > As mentioned by Adrian in the comment you linked, I too

Hi Pavel, As mentioned by Adrian in the comment you linked, I too am looking at DWARFv5 accelerator tables in LLVM. To give you some background: my motivation is that I want to upstream support for (Apple style) accelerator tables in llvm-dsymutil, which is currently missing because the way they are generated is slightly different. As this requires making changes the current code, I wanted to

Thank you for all the responses. Unfortunately I wasn't able to make any progress on creating the patches today. I'll be sure to add everyone who expressed interest here to the phabricator diff once I have them ready. Jonas, do you have any dsymutil patches I can look at? I am interested in seeing what kind of interfaces are you using, particularly on the reading side. I think the current

Hi Frank, This loop should be vectorized by the SLP-vectorizer. It has several scalars (C[0], C[1] … ) that can be merged into a vector. The SLP vectorizer can’t figure out that the stores are consecutive because SCEV can’t analyze the OR in the index calculation: %2 = and i64 %i.04, 3 %3 = lshr i64 %i.04, 2 %4 = shl i64 %3, 3 %5 = or i64 %4, %2 %11 = getelementptr inbounds float*