similar to: HPC/Parallel/Polly BoF at EuroLLVM

On 03/20/2018 05:05 AM, Michael Kruse wrote: > There's none yet according to http://llvm.org/devmtg/2018-04/#talks > > Unfortunately, I won't be present, but IMHO it would be nice to have one. I agree. This seems like a good idea.  -Hal > > Michael > > > > 2018-03-20 7:50 GMT+01:00 Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>: >> Hey folks, >>

There's none yet according to http://llvm.org/devmtg/2018-04/#talks Unfortunately, I won't be present, but IMHO it would be nice to have one. Michael 2018-03-20 7:50 GMT+01:00 Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>: > Hey folks, > > Do we have proposals for an HPC focused BoF at EuroLLVM? > > I'd like to discuss the current efforts around integrating Polly,

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 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

> 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

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

Status Update on VPlan ---- where we are currently, and what's ahead of us ==========================================================   Goal: ----- Extending Loop Vectorizer (LV) such that it can handle outer loops, via uplifting its infrastructure with VPlan. The goal of this status update is to summarize the progress and the future steps needed.   Background: ----------- This is related to

Sorry for jumping from http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-September/125853.html but this is relevant. Sorry for not responding to that sooner. I was thinking about a longer reply, and time flied too quickly. >But, as I said back then, before we do so, we need to understand >exactly where to put it. That will depend on what other passes will >actually use it and if we want it

Hello debug-info fans, There has been a lot of activity in the debug-info area lately, and I was wondering if there's interest in a BoF session this April. Alternatively we could just have a hacker-lab table again, which worked out pretty well at the last US meeting. Some potential discussion topics for the BoF/table could be: * Improving debugging of optimized code ** Defining what -Og

Hi, I found with the help of the optimization remarks a loop that could not be vectorized, but if loop distribution was enabled this may happen, which it in fact did with a very significant benchmark improvement (~25%). I tried (on SystemZ) to enable this pass, and found that it only affected a handful of files on SPEC. This means I could enable this without worrying about any regressions on

>I'm just curious as tho which concrete passes would benefit sooner. This all depends on those who are working on other loop xforms, since we currently don't have bandwidth to drive that kind of changes into other loop xforms. That's why when this line of questions pops up, I offer to work together. Short of that, the best we can proactively do is to make vectorizer analyses

Hi all, I'm organizing a BoF session during the upcoming EuroLLVM developers meeting. As the subject of this message already shows, this session will be on compilers in education. I'm currently looking for both participants to the discussion and input for the actual program of the session. I've already got some ideas which I'll introduce below. At our university, we mostly

Proposal for extending the Loop Vectorizer to handle Outer Loops ================================================================ 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

Jonas/Renato, >I think it's mostly about the success rate, given it's too conservative. But in the past 2 years, improvements in (and around) the LV have been slowed down a bit due to the move >to VPlan. It wasn't our intention to slow down LV improvements, but if the project ended up causing other developers take the stance of wait-and-see, that's an inevitable side effect

Proposal for Outer Loop Vectorization Implementation Plan ============================================= ===== Goal: ===== Extending Loop Vectorizer (LV) such that it can handle outer loops, via VPlan infrastructure enhancements. Understand the trade-offs in trying to make concurrent progress with moving remaining inner loop vectorization functionality to VPlan infrastructure   ===========

On 10/14/2017 05:28 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de > <mailto:llvmdev at meinersbur.de>> wrote: > > 2017-10-14 5:03 GMT+02:00 Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org > <mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org>>: > > FWIW: We hit a subset of this issue with

>I think we need to get that story right for both cases up front. Renato, I kicked off this secondary discussion, borrowing the opportunity from Michael's RFC, but to the point of reviewing https://reviews.llvm.org/D38676, I'd like the review to proceed separately from this bigger (and most likely longer) discussion. We intentionally made the interfaces similar such that whatever the

On 09/13/2018 02:43 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: > On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 at 18:46, Saito, Hideki <hideki.saito at intel.com> wrote: >> This all depends on those who are working on other loop xforms, since we currently don't have bandwidth to drive that kind of changes into other loop xforms. That's why when this line of questions pops up, I offer to work together.

Hello, We would like to propose making LoopVectorize aware of SLP operations, to improve the generated code for loops operating on struct fields or doing complex math. At the moment, LoopVectorize uses interleaving to vectorize loops that operate on values loaded/stored from consecutive addresses: vector loads/stores are generated to combine consecutive loads/stores and then shufflevector