similar to: [LLVMdev] Indexed Load and Store Intrinsics - proposal

hi Hao, I started to upstream and the second patch is stalled under review now. - Elena -----Original Message----- From: Hao Liu [mailto:haoliuts at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 05:56 To: Demikhovsky, Elena Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Indexed Load and Store Intrinsics - proposal Hi Elena, I think such intrinsics are very useful. Do you have any plan to

On 12/18/2014 11:56 AM, dag at cray.com wrote: > "Demikhovsky, Elena" <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com> writes: > >> Semantics: >> For i=0,1,…,N-1: if (Mask[i]) {*(BaseAddr + VectorOfIndices[i]*Scale) >> = VectorValue[i];} >> VectorValue: any float or integer vector type. >> BaseAddr: a pointer; may be zero if full address is placed in the

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ayal Zaks" <ayal.zaks at intel.com> > To: "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com>, dag at cray.com, "Elena Demikhovsky" <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com> > Cc: "Robert Khasanov" <robert.khasanov at intel.com>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 8:05:43 AM

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Xinmin Tian" <xinmin.tian at intel.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Ayal Zaks" <ayal.zaks at intel.com> > Cc: dag at cray.com, "Robert Khasanov" <robert.khasanov at intel.com>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 7:36:44 PM > Subject: RE:

Hi all, AVX-512 ISA introduces new vector instructions VCOMPRESS and VEXPAND in order to allow vectorization of the following loops with two specific types of cross-iteration dependencies: Compress: for (int i=0; i<N; ++i) If (t[i]) *A++ = expr; Expand: for (i=0; i<N; ++i) If (t[i]) X[i] = *A++; else

| |Hi Elena, | |Technically speaking, this seems straightforward. | |I wonder, however, how target-independent this is in a practical |sense; will there be an efficient lowering when targeting any other |ISA? I don't want to get into the territory where, because the |vectorizer is supposed to be architecture independent, we need to |add target-independent intrinsics for all

| |How would this work in this case? The result would need to affect the |legality and cost of the memory instruction. From your poster, it looks |like we're talking about loops with constructs like this: | |for (i =0; i < N; i++) { | if (topVal > b[i]) { | *dst = a[i]; | dst++; | } |} | |is this loop vectorizable at all without these constructs? Good

I created an application that uses dynamic forking and it works perfect in windows, but fails in wine. Is this a bug or is this feature disabled in Wine? I don't have wine myself but someone we have testing the app for us does. It's difficult to debug over the net so I was hoping for some help here... After adding some debug info we've traced a few failure points to a call to

Hi all, I would like to know if LLVM Neon intrinsics are designed to support only 'Legal' types for NEON units. Using llc -march=arm -mcpu=cortex-a9 vmax4.ll -o vmax4.s on following ll code: ; ModuleID = 'vmax.ll' target datalayout = "e-p:32:32:32-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:64:64-f32:32:32-f64:64:64-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-n32" target triple =

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Sebastien DELDON-GNB <sebastien.deldon at st.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to know if LLVM Neon intrinsics are designed to support only 'Legal' types for NEON units. > Using llc -march=arm -mcpu=cortex-a9 vmax4.ll -o vmax4.s on following ll code: > > > ; ModuleID = 'vmax.ll' > target datalayout =

Hi Eli, Thanks for the answer, it clarifies the situation for me. Do you know if there is Pass in LLVM that could be adapted to 'legalize' intrinsics calls ? Or shall I define my own intrinsics for non supported types ? Best Regards Seb ________________________________________ De : Eli Friedman [eli.friedman at gmail.com] Date d'envoi : vendredi 21 septembre 2012 11:54 À : Sebastien

Hi I find types such as v16i32, v16f32 missing in my llvm version 2.7 So does the following page not list them http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/classllvm_1_1MVT.html is that intentional for any reason or can I just add them ? thanks shrey

Hi everyone! In a package I'm developing, I have created a custom function to get jackknife standard errors for the parameters of a gnm model (which is essentially the same as a glm model for this issue). I'd like to add support for bootstrap using package boot, but I couldn't find how to proceed. The problem is, my data is a table object. Thus, I don't have one individual per

Regarding patches 5-7, it seems like the mem-map code flow could be more shared. It is a bit challenging to unravel things though. I guess the only specific thing I can really point out is that PcdPciAllowFullEnumeration should be initialized in a different patch, and not within the mem-map init path. -Jordan On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote: > This

This patch adds an option to instantiate guest virtio-mmio devices basing on a kernel command line (or module) parameter, for example: virtio_mmio.devices=0x100 at 0x100b0000:48,1K at 0x1001e000:74 Signed-off-by: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll at arm.com> --- drivers/virtio/Kconfig | 25 ++++++ drivers/virtio/virtio_mmio.c | 170 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 2 files

This patch adds an option to instantiate guest virtio-mmio devices basing on a kernel command line (or module) parameter, for example: virtio_mmio.devices=0x100 at 0x100b0000:48,1K at 0x1001e000:74 Signed-off-by: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll at arm.com> --- drivers/virtio/Kconfig | 25 ++++++ drivers/virtio/virtio_mmio.c | 170 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 2 files

On Sep 21, 2012, at 2:58 AM, Sebastien DELDON-GNB <sebastien.deldon at st.com> wrote: > Hi Eli, > > Thanks for the answer, it clarifies the situation for me. Do you know if there is Pass in LLVM that could be adapted to 'legalize' intrinsics calls ? > Or shall I define my own intrinsics for non supported types ? You should never generate these sorts of intrinsics with

This patch adds an option to instantiate guest virtio-mmio devices basing on a kernel command line (or module) parameter, for example: virtio_mmio.devices=0x100 at 0x100b0000:48 Signed-off-by: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll at arm.com> --- Hi Rusty, As the param changes are in now, could you queue this long-time-forgotten patch for 3.5? Cheers! Pawel PS. Congratulations once again and see

This patch adds an option to instantiate guest virtio-mmio devices basing on a kernel command line (or module) parameter, for example: virtio_mmio.devices=0x100 at 0x100b0000:48 Signed-off-by: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll at arm.com> --- Hi Rusty, As the param changes are in now, could you queue this long-time-forgotten patch for 3.5? Cheers! Pawel PS. Congratulations once again and see

I have an Adaptec 392320 Ultra320 SCSI adapter. I am running x86_64 SLES9 SP3. When I build x86_64 Xen with just the 2.6-xen kernel + initrd, I am getting the following error on the module load. But if I go back to building separate xenU and xen0 kernels without initrd the device works without any issues. Any idea what is going wrong here? Am I leaving something out of my initrd? Here is the