similar to: [LLVMdev] E = L->begin() in LoopVectorize

Looking at it now, curious why no tests failed. On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > Almost certainly, yes. Nice catch! > > > On Mar 18, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Liang Wang <netcasper at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I'm studying loop vectorizer. I don't understand the code yet. But > > it

Hello. I am trying to create my own LoopVectorize.cpp pass as a separate pass from the LLVM trunk, as described in http://llvm.org/docs/CMake.html#embedding-llvm-in-your-project. Did anybody try something like this? I added close to the end of the .cpp file: /* this line seems to be required - it allows to run this pass as an embedded pass by giving opt -my-loop-vectorize

Hello, Michael, I'd like to ask if we can enhance the LoopVectorize LLVM module (I am currently using a version from Jul 2016). More exactly: - do you envision to support in the near future LLVM IR gather and scatter intrinsics (as described at http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#llvm-masked-gather-intrinsics and scatter)? I see you have defined some methods that should

Hello. I'm not able to vectorize this simple C loop doing basically what could be called predicated sum-reduction: #define NMAX 1000 int colOccupied[NMAX]; void Func(int N) { int numSol = 0; for (int c = 0; c < N; c++) { if (colOccupied[c] == 0) numSol++; } return numSol; } The compiler

Thanks, that did it! Are there any plans to enable the loop vectorizer by default? From: Nadav Rotem [mailto:nrotem at apple.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 13:33 PM To: Nowicki, Tyler Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: Packed instructions generaetd by LoopVectorize? Hi Tyler, Try adding -ffast-math. We can only vectorize reduction variables if it is safe to reorder floating

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

Hi, I have a question about LoopVectorize. I wrote a simple test case, a dot product loop and found that packed instructions are generated when input arrays are integer, but not when they are float or double. If I modify the float example in http://llvm.org/docs/Vectorizers.html by adding restrict to the input arrays packed instructions are generated. Although it should not be required I tried

Hi Tyler, Try adding -ffast-math. We can only vectorize reduction variables if it is safe to reorder floating point operations. Thanks, Nadav On Apr 3, 2013, at 10:29 AM, "Nowicki, Tyler" <tyler.nowicki at intel.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I have a question about LoopVectorize. I wrote a simple test case, a dot product loop and found that packed instructions are

Hello. Could you please tell me why the first loop of the following program (also maybe the commented loop) doesn't get vectorized with LoopVectorize (from a recent LLVM build from the SVN repository from Jun 2018)? typedef short TYPE; TYPE data[1400][1200]; void kernel_covariance(int m, int n, TYPE mean[1200]) { int i, j, k; for (j = 0; j < m; j++) { mean[j] =

Hi Florian! This proposal sounds pretty exciting! Integrating SLP-aware loop vectorization (or the other way around) and SLP into the VPlan framework is definitely aligned with the long term vision and we would prefer this approach to the LoopReroll and InstCombine alternatives that you mentioned. We prefer a generic implementation that can handle complicated cases to something ad-hoc for some

Hi folks, I've been playing with LLVM on a Chromebook (Ubuntu) and it seems to work quite well. Installing Ubuntu on the Chromebook was a breeze[1] and all tools/libs/headers required to check-out and build LLVM were accessible via apt-get. I had two problems to build it, but apart from those, it all ran smoother than I'd expected. I'll investigate the errors a bit deeper later on,

Hi Nadav, I tried your suggestion by changing the condition to : 189 if (LoopVectorize && OptLevel >= 0) 190 MPM.add(createLoopVectorizePass()); and compiled. Then I used the following command: opt -mtriple=x86_64-linux-gnu -vectorize-loops -vectorizer-min-trip-count=6 -debug-only=loop-vectorize -O1-S -o example1_vect.s example1.s where example1.s is IR generated by clang -S

Hi Anadi, In the file PassManagerBuilder.cpp you can change the lines below to get rid of the O3 restriction. 189 if (LoopVectorize && OptLevel > 2) 190 MPM.add(createLoopVectorizePass()); Nadav On Apr 10, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Anadi Mishra <reachanadi at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I am trying out the LoopVectorizer(LV) pass and would like to decouple

Hi Anadi, Yes, this is a bug in the loop vectorizer. The loop vectorizer expects only one loop counter (integer with step=1). There is no reason why we should not handle the case below, and it should be easy to fix. Interestingly enough if you reverse the order of iterations and count from SIZE to zero, the loop vectorizer would vectorize it. If you open a bugzilla report and assign it to me

Done. Best, Anadi. On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Anadi, > > Yes, this is a bug in the loop vectorizer. The loop vectorizer expects only > one loop counter (integer with step=1). There is no reason why we should > not handle the case below, and it should be easy to fix. Interestingly > enough if you reverse the order of

Just an FYI: it's often handy to mention the PR number when a thread is concluded by filing a bug. That way other people reading (now, or more importantly, later) can follow the issue through to the bug and its resolution On Apr 11, 2013 4:24 PM, "Anadi Mishra" <reachanadi at gmail.com> wrote: > Done. > > Best, > Anadi. > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:01

Hi, On 08/02/2018 04:22, Caballero, Diego wrote: > Hi Florian! > > This proposal sounds pretty exciting! Integrating SLP-aware loop vectorization (or the other way around) and SLP into the VPlan framework is definitely aligned with the long term vision and we would prefer this approach to the LoopReroll and InstCombine alternatives that you mentioned. We prefer a generic implementation

Hello. Mikhail, with the more recent version of the LoopVectorize.cpp code (retrieved at the beginning of July 2016) I ran the following piece of C code: void foo(long *A, long *B, long *C, long N) { for (long i = 0; i < N; ++i) { C[i] = A[i] + B[i]; } } The vectorized LLVM program I obtain contains 2 vector.body blocks - one named

Hello, I am trying out the LoopVectorizer(LV) pass and would like to decouple it from O3 which is currently required to run LV. I want to do this because I want to understand the behaviour of LV by trying simple loops but the O3 mostly optimises away the loop body. Any ideas would be appreciated. Best, Anadi. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

LLVM friends, I'm currently trying to make LoopVectorizationLegality class in Transform/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp more modular and eventually move it to Analysis directory tree. It uses several file scope helper functions that do not really belong to LoopVectorize. Let me start from getPointerOperand(). Within LLVM, there are five other similar functions defined. I think it's time to