similar to: [LLVMdev] Portable OpenCL

Portable OpenCL (pocl) v0.6 released ------------------------------------ Portable OpenCL aims to be an efficient open source (MIT-licensed) implementation of the OpenCL 1.2 standard. In addition to producing an easily portable open source OpenCL implementation, another major goal of the project is improving performance portability of OpenCL programs with compiler optimizations, reducing the

I was hoping you would come to the collaborative, joint solution. I've been waiting for Clang to have a settled OpenCL implementation to start working on OpenCL. Dealing with 3 parallel projects would be just that, a pain in the rear. - Marc On 10/20/2011 03:45 AM, Ralf Karrenberg wrote: > Hi Carlos, > > On 10/20/11 9:54 AM, Carlos Sánchez de La Lama wrote: >>> The

Hi Ralf, > The project started as a use-case for our "Whole-Function Vectorization" > library, which allows to transform a function to compute the same as W > executions of the original code by using SIMD instructions (W = 4 for > SSE/AltiVec, 8 for AVX). Quite interesting. We were planning to add "vectorization" to our passes also, but if I understood the

Hi all, >>> I would favor calling conventions over metadata for the simple >>> reason that this maps more cleanly to the device model. Device and >>> kernel functions are represented differently in PTX, including >>> (sometimes) the way parameters are passed. >> For the record, marking the kernels with "calling conventions" >> instead

Portable OpenCL aims to be an efficient open source (MIT-licensed) implementation of the OpenCL 1.2 standard. In addition to producing an easily portable open source OpenCL implementation, another major goal of the project is improving performance portability of OpenCL programs with compiler optimizations, reducing the need for target-dependent manual optimizations. At the core of pocl is the

Hi Carlos, On 10/20/11 9:54 AM, Carlos Sánchez de La Lama wrote: >> The project started as a use-case for our "Whole-Function Vectorization" >> library, which allows to transform a function to compute the same as W >> executions of the original code by using SIMD instructions (W = 4 for >> SSE/AltiVec, 8 for AVX). > > Quite interesting. We were planning to

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pekka Jääskeläinen" <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> > To: "Ralf Karrenberg" <Chareos at gmx.de> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:15:43 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LoopVectorizer in OpenCL C work group autovectorization > > Hi

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pekka Jääskeläinen" <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> > To: "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 5:35:16 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LoopVectorizer in OpenCL C work group autovectorization > > On

Hi everybody, the compiler design lab at Saarland University (chair of Sebastian Hack) is also working on an LLVM-based OpenCL driver. The project started as a use-case for our "Whole-Function Vectorization" library, which allows to transform a function to compute the same as W executions of the original code by using SIMD instructions (W = 4 for SSE/AltiVec, 8 for AVX). The

Hi Ralf, On 01/31/2013 05:44 PM, Ralf Karrenberg wrote: > As for the current status, the loop vectorizer is only able to vectorize > inner loops and (I think) does not handle function calls and memory > operations well. This will prevent it from vectorizing a large group of > OpenCL kernels, and certainly all "interesting", more complex ones. Agreed -- but not being able to

Do we have a list of these open-source LLVM-based OpenCL projects somewhere? Off the top of my head, we have: libclc: http://www.pcc.me.uk/~peter/libclc/ pocl: https://launchpad.net/pocl clover: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~steckdenis/clover/ (I think that all of these have BSD- or MIT-style licenses). Are there any others? -Hal On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 14:47 +0100, Peter Collingbourne wrote:

Ralf, What version of the SDK were you using for your analysis? I don't see that in the slides/pdf. Thanks, Micah > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Ralf Karrenberg > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 2:13 PM > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] ANN: libclc (OpenCL C

Portable Computing Language (pocl) v0.8 released Pocl's goal is to become an efficient open source (MIT-licensed) implementation of the OpenCL 1.2 (and soon OpenCL 2.0) standard. In addition to producing an easily portable open-source OpenCL implementation, another major goal of this project is improving performance portability of OpenCL programs with compiler optimizations, reducing the

Hi Micah, The numbers from the paper were measured with the ATI Stream SDK v2.1 (it's only mentioned in the references I think). The most recent measurements I have were done with the current v2.5. Best, Ralf Am 19.10.2011 23:43, schrieb Villmow, Micah: > Ralf, > What version of the SDK were you using for your analysis? I don't see that in the slides/pdf. > > Thanks, >

Hi Pekka, > How I see it, the data parallel input simply makes the vectorizer's job > easier (skip some of the legality checks) while reusing most of the > implementation (e.g. cost estimation, unrolling decisions, the > vector instruction formation itself, predication/if-conversion, > speculative execution+blend, etc.). > What you need is outer loop vectorization while

Pocl is a portable open source (MIT-licensed) implementation of the OpenCL standard (1.2 with some 2.0 features supported). In addition to producing an easily portable open-source OpenCL implementation, another major goal of this project is improving performance portability of OpenCL programs with the kernel compiler and the task runtime, reducing the need for target-dependent manual

2011/12/14 Pekka Jääskeläinen <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> > Hi all, > > On 12/13/2011 10:50 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > > You mean having no calling convention for device functions, and a new, > common > > calling convention for kernels? > > I think this might make sense. > To be clear, I do like the idea of using the default calling convention for

Carlos, AMD's OpenCL implementation(both CPU and GPU) has worked for years with the way SPIR represents locals. If there is problems with the representation then it is an implementation issue. One of the issues with using extra kernel arguments is that it requires extra validation and complexity at the runtime level that is not needed if it is handled internally by the compiler. That being

On 01/25/2013 09:56 AM, Nadav Rotem wrote: > Thanks for checking the Loop Vectorizer, I am interested in hearing your > feedback. The Loop Vectorizer does not fit here. OpenCL vectorization is > completely different because the language itself is data-parallel. You > don't need all of the legality checks that the loop vectorizer has. I'm aware of this and it was my point in

Hi Pekka, hi Nadav, I didn't find the time to read this thread until now, sorry for that. I actually think you are both right :). As for the current status, the loop vectorizer is only able to vectorize inner loops and (I think) does not handle function calls and memory operations well. This will prevent it from vectorizing a large group of OpenCL kernels, and certainly all