similar to: [LLVM] (RFC) Addition/Support of new Vectorization Pragmas in LLVM

On May 23, 2013, at 9:15 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 23 May 2013 14:52, Arnold Schwaighofer <aschwaighofer at apple.com> wrote: > I would like us to grow a few annotations, among others, one to force vectorization irrespective whether the loop vectorizer thinks it is beneficial or not - however, this is future music. > > Isn't that part

On 2013-05-23, at 10:37 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > > On May 23, 2013, at 9:15 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > >> On 23 May 2013 14:52, Arnold Schwaighofer <aschwaighofer at apple.com> wrote: >> I would like us to grow a few annotations, among others, one to force vectorization irrespective whether the loop vectorizer thinks it is

On May 23, 2013, at 8:52 AM, "Redmond, Paul" <paul.redmond at intel.com> wrote: > > !0 = metadata !{ metadata !1, metadata !2 } > !1 = metadata !{ metadata !"llvm.loop.parallel" } > !2 = metadata !{ metadata !"llvm.vectorization.vector_width", i32 8 } > > I'm not even sure you would need the llvm.loop.parallel anymore since the

On 8/8/19 2:03 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: Hi, First, as a high-level note, you posted a link to a Google doc, and at the end of the Google doc, you have a list of questions that you'd like answered. In the future, please put the questions directly in the email. For one thing, more people will read your email than will open your Google doc. Second, having the questions in the email should allow a

> There is a fundamental problem with the way that ivdep is defined by Intel's current documentation, at least for C/C++. As you note in your Google doc, it essentially says that the optimizer may ignore loop-carried dependencies except for those dependencies it can definitely prove are present. These are not semantics that any other compiler can actually replicate, and is not equivalent to

Hello all, We are students from Indian Institute of Technology(IIT), Hyderabad, we would like to propose the addition of the following pragmas in LLVM that aide in (or possibly increase the scope of) vectorization in LLVM (in comparison with other compilers). 1. ivdep 2. Nontemporal 3. [no]vecremainder 4. [no]mask_readwrite 5. [un]aligned Could you please

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > To: "Paul Redmond" <paul.redmond at intel.com> > Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 11:13:06 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] parallel loop metadata simplification > > ----- Original Message ----- > >

Hi Hal, On 2013-02-28, at 9:33 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Paul Redmond" <paul.redmond at intel.com> >> To: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> >> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:30:57 PM >> Subject: [LLVMdev] parallel loop metadata simplification >> >> Hi, >>

Dear all; Does anyone know how to add grid lines to a persp plot? I've tried using lines(trans3d..) but the lines of course are superimposed into the actual 3d surface and what I need is something like the plot shown in the following link: http://thermal.gg.utah.edu/tutorials/matlab/matlab_tutorial.html I'll appreciate any ideas Thanks PM

Hi, I've been working on clang codegen for #pragma ivdep and creating the llvm.mem.parallel_loop_access metadata seems quite difficult. The main problem is that there are so many places where loads and stores are created and all of them need to be changed when emitting a parallel loop. Note that creating llvm.loop.parallel is not a problem. One option is to modify IRBuilder to enable

Hello all, Thanks for the comments. Attached is a new version with Tobias' and Sebastian's (final?) comments addressed. Any further comments are appreciated. Nadav suggested a request for comments in llvmdev before committing it. In order to describe the current idea of the parallel loop metadata, I think it's easiest to just copy-paste the documentation I wrote for this patch so

Hi All, I'm a little stumped by the following problem. I've got a dataset with the following structure: idxy ix iy country (other variables) 1 1 1 c1 x1 2 1 2 c1 x2 3 1 3 c1 x3 . . . . . 3739 55 67 c7 x3739 3740 55 68 c7 x3740 where ix and

On 2013-03-01, at 11:35 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Paul Redmond" <paul.redmond at intel.com> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >> Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> >> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 10:06:51 AM >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] parallel loop

On Feb 12, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > On 02/12/2013 05:54 PM, Nadav Rotem wrote: >> >>> I have the feeling option 2) does not work for you, but I don't yet understand your reasons. >> >> My inclination to prefer #1 is due to its simplicity. But, if #1 does not work because it creates a correctness problems then #2 is

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > > On May 23, 2013, at 8:52 AM, "Redmond, Paul" <paul.redmond at intel.com> > wrote: > > > !0 = metadata !{ metadata !1, metadata !2 } > !1 = metadata !{ metadata !"llvm.loop.parallel" } > !2 = metadata !{ metadata !"llvm.vectorization.vector_width", i32 8

Hey all Im having a problem... Ok, this is the situation... I have a small product image, on which ive floated a div over it, and defined it as draggable. Now, this works, and i can drag it around no problem. great. but then, what i want to do is, based on the location of that dragable element from the top and the left, to move (using the Effect.MoveBy method) a larger image - so effective

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Redmond" <paul.redmond at intel.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 10:06:51 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] parallel loop metadata simplification > > Hi Hal, > > On 2013-02-28, at 9:33

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Redmond" <paul.redmond at intel.com> > To: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:30:57 PM > Subject: [LLVMdev] parallel loop metadata simplification > > Hi, > > I've been working on clang codegen for #pragma ivdep and creating the >

Hi, Here it is, just synched against the latest LLVM trunk. Shall I commit this now? After committing, it could be worth some planning what is the best way to provide an easy to use mechanism to "refresh" the parallel loop mem access metadata (llvm.mem.parallel_loop_access) after optimizations that do not render the loop to a serial one. Some kind of helper function should be added to

vecremainder/novecremainder: Should the pragma simply call the vectorizer to attempt to vectorize the remainder loop, or should the vectorizer use a different method? > > Something like that. There were patches posted at some point to enable tail-loop vectorization. At this point, I imagine that you'd construct a VPlan with the vectorized tail. Yep, committed in