similar to: [LLVMdev] Extending vector operations

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> wrote: > 1) Vector shl, lshr, ashr > > I think these are no-brainers. We would like to extend the semantics > of the shifting instructions to naturally apply to vectors as well. > One issue is that these operations often only support a single shift > amount for an entire vector. I assume it

Hi, I have some questions as to the definition of various vector instructions. In particular, I believe there are some gaps and inconsistencies in the vector instructions, and I'm interested in hearing whether you agree that these should be improved or whether there are other ways to solve these problems. === 1. Shufflevector only accepts vectors of the same type Shufflevector seems overly

On Jul 21, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Stefanus Du Toit wrote: > Hi, > > We would like to extend the vector operations in llvm a bit. We're > hoping to get some feedback on the right way to go, or some starting > points. I had previously had some discussion on this list about a > subset of the changes we have in mind. > > All of these changes are intended to make

On Jun 26, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Stefanus Du Toit wrote: > Hi, > > I have some questions as to the definition of various vector > instructions. In particular, I believe there are some gaps and > inconsistencies in the vector instructions, and I'm interested in > hearing whether you agree that these should be improved or whether > there are other ways to solve these problems.

On Monday 21 July 2008 15:21, Stefanus Du Toit wrote: > We would like to extend the vector operations in llvm a bit. We're > hoping to get some feedback on the right way to go, or some starting > points. I had previously had some discussion on this list about a > subset of the changes we have in mind. Woohoo! We've been interested in talking about this for some time. >

Hi Dan, Thanks for your comments. I've responded inline below. On 26-Jun-08, at 6:49 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > On Jun 26, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Stefanus Du Toit wrote: >> >> === >> 1. Shufflevector only accepts vectors of the same type >> >> I would propose to change the syntax from: >> >>> <result> = shufflevector <n x <ty>>

On 23-Jul-08, at 12:15 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Monday 21 July 2008 15:21, Stefanus Du Toit wrote: > >> We would like to extend the vector operations in llvm a bit. We're >> hoping to get some feedback on the right way to go, or some starting >> points. I had previously had some discussion on this list about a >> subset of the changes we have in mind. >

On Jun 27, 2008, at 8:02 AM, Stefanus Du Toit wrote: >>>> <result> = shufflevector <a x <ty>> <v1>, <b x <ty>> <v2>, <d x >>>> i32> >>>> <mask> ; yields <d x <ty>> >>> >>> With the requirement that the entries in the (still constant) mask >>> are >>> within

On 21-Jul-08, at 7:33 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Stefanus Du Toit > <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> wrote: >> 1) Vector shl, lshr, ashr >> > I have a rough draft of a patch for this that works reasonably well > for simple cases... I don't think I really have the time to finish it > properly, but I'll clean it up a bit and

On Jun 24, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Jun 24, 2009, at 12:47 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > >> Hi Nick, >> >>> Now that icmp and fcmp have supported returning vectors of i1 for a >>> while, >> >> the code generators don't know how to codegen vectors of i1, so does >> this actually work? > > No, but there are no

On Jun 24, 2009, at 12:47 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Nick, > >> Now that icmp and fcmp have supported returning vectors of i1 for a >> while, > > the code generators don't know how to codegen vectors of i1, so does > this actually work? No, but there are no clients of them yet. -Chris

On Tuesday 22 July 2008 08:33, Stefanus Du Toit wrote: > Right, the type that needs to be used at the birthpoint of the value > will generally be determined by the operation being performed to > define it. At uses, that representation will have to be converted. Why would this ever happen? If the mask doesn't match the vector length of the operation, isn't the operation

Hi Stefanus, Thanks for verifying this. Could you patch this or should I open a new bug report and find a generic solution first? Cheers, Nicolas From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Stefanus Du Toit Sent: woensdag 1 april 2009 18:59 To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Shuffle combine On 1-Apr-09, at 12:42

For those curious about uses of LLVM, we just officially announced our adoption of LLVM in our products: http://www.rapidmind.com/News-Nov10-08-LLVM-OpenCL.php Thanks for all the support so far on here, we look forward to continuing to work with LLVM! -- Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> RapidMind Inc. phone: +1 519 885 5455 x116 -- fax: +1 519 885 1463

Hi Stefanus, Thanks for the info. I still think it's a bug though. Take for example a case where the vectors each have four elements. The values in Mask[] can range from 0 to 7, while HLSMask only has 4 elements. So LHSMask[Mask[i]] can go out of bounds, no? Cheers, Nicolas From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Stefanus Du

Hi Nicolas, On 2-Apr-09, at 6:04 PM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Thanks for verifying this. Could you patch this or should I open a > new bug report and find a generic solution first? I don't have write access so the best I could do would be to submit a patch, and I'm crazy busy at the moment. I actually think the check I described below is fine and would fix this bug (but

The llvm-dev archives (and other llvm/clang mailing list archives) on the web don't seem to have any new messages since some time Monday night. Stefanus -- Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> RapidMind Inc. phone: +1 519 885 5455 x116 -- fax: +1 519 885 1463

On 1-Apr-09, at 12:42 PM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi Stefanus, > > Thanks for the info. I still think it’s a bug though. Take for > example a case where the vectors each have four elements. The values > in Mask[] can range from 0 to 7, while HLSMask only has 4 elements. > So LHSMask[Mask[i]] can go out of bounds, no? Good point! One easy way to fix this would be to use:

Hello, We've run across the following missed optimization: in the attached loop (addind.c/addind-opt.ll) there's a lookup into an array (V) using an indirect index (coming from another array, WI[k]) offset by a loop- invariant base (l). The full addressing expression can be reassociated so that we add the offset l to V's base first, and then add the indirect part. This makes

Hi all, I've located a regression that causes my project to crash. It's in revision 67979, where PointerIntPair is changed from storing the integer in the upper bits instead of the lower bits. My project is an experimental JIT-compiler in Windows. So I was wondering if anyone had any clue why the new PointerIntPair implementation might fail. It doesn't seem very safe to me to