similar to: Polly -polly-prevect-width

Hello, I need help here. I am able to adjust the vector width through WidestRegister value. When number of iterations=31 and I set vector width=32 it gives <16xi32> and <8xi32> instructions. However if i replicate same behavior with number of iterations=63 and I set vector width=64, no vector instructions are emitted. it should do as previous and gives <32xi32> and

On Sat, May 6, 2017, at 04:28 PM, llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org wrote: > The Buildbot has detected a failed build on builder polly-amd64-linux > while building polly. > Full details are available at: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/polly-amd64-linux/builds/6539 > > Buildbot URL: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/ > > Buildslave for this Build: grosser1 > > Build

Thank You. Right now to see the effect i did following changes; unsigned X86TTIImpl::getRegisterBitWidth(bool Vector) { if (Vector) { if (ST->hasAVX512()) return 65536; here i changed 512 to 65536. Then in loopvectorize.cpp i did following; assert(MaxVectorSize <= 2048 && "Did not expect to pack so many elements" " into

Thank You. But I cannot find your mentioned function LoopVectorizationCostModel::computeFeasibleMaxVF(bool OptForSize, unsigned ConstTripCount). I am using LLVM 4. I have been trying to get the required code portion in LoopVectorize.cpp file. But I am unable to debug this. each time i debug it, it returns me vectorized IR in gdb. My goal is simple when i mention my target name in opt it should

Hi Tobias, could we use information about memory accesses of a SCoP statement and def-use chains to determine statements, which don’t contain matrix multiplication of the following form? for (int i = 0; i < Upper Bound1; i++) for (int j = 0; j < Upper Bound2; j++) for (int k = 0; k < Upper Bound3; j++) C[i][j] += A[i][k] * B[k][j] We could probably check that memory access

I''m working with a pretty simple config at the moment to track down some issues I''m seeing with custom facts and plugins. I have factsync = true (default locations) and I have a simple fact in /var/lib/puppet/facts/ (actually it''s David''s netmask plugin) my pp file I''m testing with contains only: notice "netmask: ${netmask}" puppet -v

On 05/17/2016 01:47 PM, Michael Kruse wrote: > 2016-05-16 19:52 GMT+02:00 Roman Gareev <gareevroman at gmail.com>: >> Hi Tobias, >> >> could we use information about memory accesses of a SCoP statement and >> def-use chains to determine statements, which don’t contain matrix >> multiplication of the following form? > > Assuming s/don't/do you want

I just checkout release_38 branches of llvm, clang and polly and built it on and x86 Ubuntu with cmake: CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE="Debug" CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX="$HOME/toolchain/install/llvm-3.8" LLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="X86" cmake -G "Unix Makefiles" \ -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS="ON" \ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=$CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE \

Thank You. I got it. Version issue. TTI.getRegisterBitWidth(true) How to put my target machine info in TTI? Please help. On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:33 PM, Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 7/23/2018 10:49 AM, hameeza ahmed via llvm-dev wrote: > > Thank You. > > But I cannot find your mentioned function

On 02/02/2014 01:48, David Chisnall wrote: > In most calling conventions, this is a callee-save register. After its last use, the register allocator may reuse that register. On x86 and ARM, the register that contains this is also (usually) the register used for But the rule "after the last use, the register allocator may reuse it" is also introduced by llvm, since register

Hi, I''m new to this mailing list, so first off, a big THANK YOU for the script.aculo.us and prototype.js libraries. I''m trying to integrate script.aculo.us into an existing pretty large Javascript codebase (see http://openrecord.org). I''m running into a problem with prototype.js and the existing codebase''s use of for/in loops over an Array.

On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 19:58 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: > On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 17:47 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote: > > By default it should build for > > whatever the current host is (no special flags required). To > > specifically build for something else, use: > > -ccc-host-triple powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu > > or > > -ccc-host-triple

> In general, as a package user, I don't want people to be able to > suppress checks on CRAN. I want things fixed. > > So I am pretty sure there won't ever be a reliable "CRAN-detector" put > into R. It would devalue the brand. > > Duncan Murdoch My problem is that CRAN demands that I suppress a large fraction of my checks, in order to fit within time

On 10/14/24 10:22, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > The problem with that idea is that Microsoft would also have to accept > it and they probably wouldn't. Oh. Ah. So supersets to the AD behavior are strictly verboten? > Well a trick is just that, a trick (aka workaround), now we know it > doesn't work, I will remove it from the wiki. > > Rowland > Actually,

One other solution that's only a little crazy: you could have a R function within your package that generates the appropriate (portable) Makevars, and within the package `configure` script call that function. For example" R --vanilla --slave -e "source('R/makevars.R'); makevars()" And that 'makevars()' function could generate portable

>>>>> Dirk Eddelbuettel writes: > On 10 May 2019 at 10:52, Johannes Ranke wrote: > | Thanks, that sounds good. But I need some help as I do not know much about > | autoconf and Debian packaging: Is it enough to patch configure.ac (r76467) or > | do we need to update configure as well (r76468)? > Again, that would happen in the sources you pick up from me, and per

On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:14 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > Testcase (compile with clang >= r76726): > #include <emmintrin.h> > __m128i a(__m128 a, __m128 b) { return a==a & b==b; } > > CodeGen ends up scalarizing the comparison, which is really bad, and > AFAIK different from what we did before vsetcc was removed. The ideal > code is a single cmpordps, although I

On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 00:47 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote: > On Tue, 01 May 2012 21:25:29 -0500 > Peter Bergner <bergner at vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > By the strict letter of the 32-bit ABI, the save and restore of > > r31 at a negative offset of r1 is verboten. The ABI states the > > the stack space below the stack pointer is declared as volatile. > > I actually

Is it just me or would it be nifty if Clang emitted a warning message when it generates an "ud2" (UnDefined2) instruction. I know this is x86-specific, but it would be sort of nice to know up front. After all, the compiler knows perfectly well that it is outputting an "ud2" instruction and I'm pretty sure almost every programmer out there would like to share the unhappy

Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> writes: > Well, Dirk has said to have given his last reply on this thread. > I (as a member of R-core) am glad about people like Dirk who > take some of our load and helpfully answer such > questions/reports on R-devel. I am glad too. Thank you. My ultimate goal is to ensure that R works as well on FreeBSD as it does elsewhere.