similar to: [LLVMdev] Does loop vectorizer inquire about target's SIMD capabilities?

Hi Akira! > > Does the current loop vectorizer inquire about the SIMD capabilities of the target architecture when it decides whether it is profitable to vectorize a loop? Yes, it uses a cost model to determine the profitability of vectorization. At the moment only x86 provides the necessary hooks that are needed for calculating the costs. We may need to change the cost defaults to

Hi Nadav, On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Akira! > > > > > Does the current loop vectorizer inquire about the SIMD capabilities of > the target architecture when it decides whether it is profitable to > vectorize a loop? > > Yes, it uses a cost model to determine the profitability of vectorization. > At the

On 3 January 2013 21:53, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > > I am asking this because I would like to have loop vectorization > disabled for targets that don't support SIMD instructions (for example, > standard mips32). > > Loop vectorization bloats the code size and prolongs compilation time > without any improvement to performance for such targets. >

On Jan 3, 2013, at 2:05 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > Isn't the vectorizer disabled by default? The loop vectorizer is now enabled by default. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130103/4645b2e8/attachment.html>

On 3 January 2013 22:09, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > The loop vectorizer is now enabled by default. > I thought that was just a temporary arrangement to get the feel for it, not to actually have it on all the time (next release). Is it just for -O3 or lower too? This can cause problems, for instance on ARMv7, the default is that NEON is present, but Tegra2 doesn't

On Jan 3, 2013, at 3:04 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 3 January 2013 22:09, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > The loop vectorizer is now enabled by default. > > I thought that was just a temporary arrangement to get the feel for it, not to actually have it on all the time (next release). Is it just for -O3 or lower too? The plan it

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Tom Stellard > Sent: 19 September 2014 01:36 > To: Sanjay Patel > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] predicates vs. requirements [TableGen, > X86InstrInfo.td] > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 03:25:07PM -0600, Sanjay Patel wrote: >

I tried to add an 'OptForSize' requirement to a pattern in X86InstrSSE.td, but it appears to be ignored. However, the condition was detected when specified as a predicate. So this doesn't work: def : Pat<(v2f64 (X86VBroadcast (loadf64 addr:$src))), (VMOVDDUPrm addr: $src)>, *Requires<[OptForSize**]>*; But this does: * let Predicates = [OptForSize]

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

Is there a way to ask asterisk from a shell script if its connection (SIP) is valid to another system. Lets say for example to cisco call manager? Thanks, Jerry

I am looking for the binary rw1051. I have some code that will only run in version 1.5.1 and I need to install the old binary code. Is there a repository for previous R versions? Regards, Ernesto Calvo [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Dear all, Is there any standard statistical terminology describing the points beyond a confidence region? Obviously, the "outlier" is improper here. Please help me if you happens have the info. Thanks you very much for your kindly help. Best wishes, Zhiqiu [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

everyone-- The OCaml bindings need help again. diff -r a8c05e69647e import/llvm.org/llvm/bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.ml --- a/import/llvm.org/llvm/bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.ml Fri Dec 25 17:35:09 2009 -0800 +++ b/import/llvm.org/llvm/bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.ml Sun Dec 27 11:38:15 2009 -0800 @@ -42,13 +42,18 @@ | External | Available_externally | Link_once + | Link_once_odr | Weak +

On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 02:04:54PM -0800, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > > On Feb 26, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 01:07:39PM -0800, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > >> > >> You may want to consider using xorl+decl instead. It is also three > >> bytes, and there are no false dependencies. The xor idiom is

Hey there, I'm testing LVM snapshot to make backups and I've some questions about snapshot lvm. In my test case I have httpd, postgresql db and a dataset on a VM. Running a backup I follow this steps: 1) Stop httpd 2) Create lvm snapshot on the dataset 3) Backup database 4) restart httpd (to avoid more downtime) 5) mount the snapshot and execute backup 6) umount and remove the snapshot

On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 01:29:25AM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > +let Predicates = [OptForSize] in { > +def : Pat<(store (i32 0), addr:$dst), (AND32mi8 addr:$dst, 0)>; > +def : Pat<(store (i32 0), addr:$dst), (AND32mi8 addr:$dst, 0)>; > +def : Pat<(store (i64 -1), addr:$dst), (OR64mi8 addr:$dst, -1)>; > +def : Pat<(store (i64 -1), addr:$dst), (OR64mi8

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2718 Bug ID: 2718 Summary: SFTP idle timeout Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 7.5p1 Hardware: Sparc OS: Solaris Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: sftp-server Assignee: unassigned-bugs at mindrot.org

Assign the bug to me and I'll fix it in TOT next week! Thanks for narrowing it down! On Wednesday, September 22, 2010, Nicolas Capens <nicolas.capens at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I think I figured it out: > 112804 causes 64-bit UNPCKLBW to no longer be selected for certain cases. > 112805 is benign. > 112806 causes 64-bit UNPCKHBW to no longer be selected for

Hi All, Has anyone here used zkoss.org? What do you think of it in comparison to scriptaculous? -- Leonard Burton, N9URK http://www.jiffyslides.com service-CbOvBfcOUrWrJCssh9Shfg@public.gmane.org leonardburton-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org "The prolonged evacuation would have dramatically affected the survivability of the occupants."

On Sep 21, 2010, at 5:30 PMPDT, Bill Wendling wrote: > LLVM isn't going to stop generating MMX instructions all together. We can't do that. :-) If the user specifically wants MMX (by, say, using the builtins), we have to support that still. The plan to cease generating MMX for generic vectors is a work-in-progress right now. It's not in 2.8. > > -bw Right, early on there