similar to: Separate LoopVectorize LLVM pass

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

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, I'm studying loop vectorizer. I don't understand the code yet. But it looks not right to assign L->begin() to E. Is it a typo? Thanks, Liang diff --git a/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp b/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp index 435c005..87b5d79 100644 --- a/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp +++ b/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp @@

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

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 1:01 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 2014, at 12:44 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > >> > There appear to be two chunks of "functionality" provided by loop >> passes: >> >

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

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > > There appear to be two chunks of "functionality" provided by loop passes: > > > > 1) A worklist of loops to process. This is very rarely used: > > 1.1) LoopSimplify and LoopUnswitch add loops to the queue. > > I’m making this up without much thought, but we may benefit

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

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

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 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

Hi Alex, I think the changes you want are actually not vectorizer related. Vectorizer just uses data provided by other passes. What you probably might want is to look into routine Loop::getStartLoc() (see lib/Analysis/LoopInfo.cpp). If you find a way to improve it, patches are welcome:) Thanks, Michael > On Jun 3, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Alex Susu <alex.e.susu at gmail.com> wrote: >

Hi Michael, +llvmdev,Hal,Nadav For testing, I was currently thinking of a two pronged approach. Lit tests as you suggest with a dummy pass, probably with command line options to define what transform to do, and unit tests to test the delegate behaviour and return values. I'll try and produce a mega patch with at least the loop vectoriser moved over, then split it up again after review.

Hi Alex, This has been very recently fixed by Hal. See http://reviews.llvm.org/rL270771 Adam > On Jun 4, 2016, at 3:13 AM, Alex Susu via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello. > Mikhail, I come back to this older thread. > I need to do a few changes to LoopVectorize.cpp. > > One of them is related to figuring out the exact C source line

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer < aschwaighofer at apple.com> wrote: > The LoopVectorizer depends on LCSSA and LoopSimplify. Both are loop > passes. We will have to make them also available as utility functions. Yuck. We still need to fix these at least, but that's much better than teaching *all* the loop passes to preserve BPI and BFI. -------------- next

Hi Alex, I'm not aware of efforts on loop coalescing in LLVM, but probably polly can do something like this. Also, one related thought: it might be worth making it a separate pass, not a part of loop vectorizer. LLVM already has several 'utility' passes (e.g. loop rotation), which primarily aims at enabling other passes. Thanks, Michael > On Feb 15, 2016, at 6:44 AM, RCU

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 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

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