similar to: [RFC] Introducing a vector reduction add instruction.

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > Hi Cong, > > After reading the original RFC and this update, I'm still not entirely sure I understand the semantics of the flag you're proposing to add. Does it having something to do with the ordering of the reduction operations? The flag is only useful for vectorized reduction for now. I'll give

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Xinliang David Li" <davidxl at google.com> > To: "Cong Hou" <congh at google.com> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 5:17:58 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Introducing a vector reduction add

Interleaved access is not enabled on X86 yet. We looked at this feature and got into conclusion that interleaving (as loads + shuffles) is not always profitable on X86. We should provide the right cost which depends on number of shuffles. Number of shuffles depends on permutations (shuffle mask). And even if we estimate the number of shuffles, the shuffles are not generated in-place. Vectorizer

Hi Michael, Sometime back I did some experiments with interleave vectorizer and did not found any degrade, probably my tests/benchmarks are not extensive enough to cover much. Elina is the right person to comment on it as she already experienced cases where it hinders performance. For interleave vectorizer on X86 we do not have any specific costing, it goes to BasicTTI where the costing is not

On 26 May 2016 at 19:12, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Is there a compile-time and/or potential runtime cost that makes > enableInterleavedAccessVectorization() default to 'false'? > > I notice that this is set to true for ARM, AArch64, and PPC. > > In particular, I'm wondering if there's a reason it's not enabled for

Regarding InterleavedAccessPass - sure, but proper strided/interleaved access optimization ought to have a positive impact even without target support. Case in point - Hal enabled it on PPC last September. An important difference vs. x86 seems to be that arbitrary shuffles are cheap on PPC, but, as I said below, I hope we can enable it on x86 with a conservative cost function, and still get

the clang 3.5 loop optimizer seems to jump in unintentional for simple loops the very simple example ---- const int SIZE = 3; int the_func(int* p_array) { int dummy = 0; #if defined(ITER) for(int* p = &p_array[0]; p < &p_array[SIZE]; ++p) dummy += *p; #else for(int i = 0; i < SIZE; ++i) dummy += p_array[i]; #endif return dummy; } int main(int argc, char** argv) {

Hi When a reduction instruction is vectorized in a loop, it will be turned into an instruction with vector operands of the same operation type. This new instruction has a special property that can give us more flexibility during instruction selection later: this operation is valid as long as the reduction of all elements of the result vector is identical to the reduction of all elements of its

Hello, Currently the loop vectorizer will, by default, not consider vectorization factors that would make it generate types that do not fit into the target platform's vector registers. That is, if the widest scalar type in the scalar loop is i64, and the platform's largest vector register is 256-bit wide, we will not consider a VF above 4. We have a command line option (-mllvm

Hello. This is my 1st post. I have tried SSE execution domain fixup pass. But I am not able to see any improvements. I expect for the example below to use MOVDQA, PAND &c. (On nehalem, ANDPS is extremely slower than PAND) Please tell me if something would be wrong for me. Thank you. Takumi Host: i386-mingw32 Build: trunk at 103373 foo.ll: define <4 x i32> @foo(<4 x i32> %x,

On May 10, 2010, at 9:07 PM, NAKAMURA Takumi wrote: > Hello. This is my 1st post. ようこそ！ > I have tried SSE execution domain fixup pass. > But I am not able to see any improvements. Did you actually measure runtime, or did you look at assembly? > I expect for the example below to use MOVDQA, PAND &c. > (On nehalem, ANDPS is extremely slower than PAND) Are you sure? The

Hi Rail, Below 2 revisions might be of your interest which Detect SAD patterns and emit psadbw instructions on X86.: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14840 http://reviews.llvm.org/D14897 Intrinsics related to absdiff revisons : http://reviews.llvm.org/D10867 http://reviews.llvm.org/D11678 Hope this helps. Regards, Suyog On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 4:20 AM, Rail Shafigulin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at

Hmm, I'm not able to get those .ll files to compile if I disable SSE and I end up with SSE instructions(including sqrtpd) if I don't disable it. On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Peter Newman <peter at uformia.com> wrote: > Is there something specifically required to enable SSE? If it's not > detected as available (based from the target triple?) then I don't think

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Ahmed Bougacha <ahmed.bougacha at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Chandler, > > I've been looking at the regressions Quentin mentioned, and filed a PR > for the most egregious one: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22377 > > As for the others, I'm working on reducing them, but for now, here are > some raw observations, in case any of

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > > On Jul 5, 2012, at 9:06 PM, Anthony Blake <amb33 at cs.waikato.ac.nz> wrote: > >> I've noticed that LLVM tends to generate suboptimal code and spill an >> excessive amount of registers in large functions, such as in those >> that are automatically generated by FFTW. >

Hi, I've attached 2 .ll files which are supposed to be equivalent but 'unopt-fail.ll' causes a crash in webkit's test suite while 'unopt-pass.ll' does not. I can't give more details about the crash, when I run the crashing test it in isolation it passes, when I run the full suite it crashes; it boggles the mind. Below I provide the optimized asm that is produced from

I filed a couple more, in case they're actually different issues: - http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22412 - http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22413 And that's pretty much it for internal changes. I'm fine with flipping the switch; Quentin, are you? Also, just to have an idea, do you (or someone else!) plan to tackle these in the near future? -Ahmed On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at

Hi Shahid. Do you mind providing a concrete example of X86 code where an intrinsic was added (preferrable with filenames and line numbers)? I'm having difficulty tracking down the steps you provided. Any help is appreciated. On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Shahid, Asghar-ahmad < Asghar-ahmad.Shahid at amd.com> wrote: > Hi Rail, > > > > We had done this for generation

On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Anthony Blake <amb33 at cs.waikato.ac.nz> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: >> On Jul 5, 2012, at 9:06 PM, Anthony Blake <amb33 at cs.waikato.ac.nz> wrote: >>> [...] >>> movaps 32(%rdi), %xmm3 >>> movaps 48(%rdi), %xmm2 >>>

Using MM registers is wrong unless the user has specifically asked for it, which doesn't seem to be the case here. In the awesome MMX architecture, touching an MM register makes subsequent x87 operations fail unless an EMMS instruction is issued first; none of the compilers here are smart enough to insert EMMS instructions in the right places, so the only safe thing is not to use