Re: D30739: [OpenMP] "declare simd" for AArch64 Advanced SIMD.

[Francesco Petrogalli via cfe-commits]

On 23 Mar 2017, at 17:31, Tian, Xinmin  wrote:

> What is the error in the spec?
>

Hi Xinmin - there is nothing wrong with the specs for x86.

The problem is that the way the CDT is computed is not optimal for AArch64. We 
are in the process of re-defining it specifically for AArch64.

Francesco

> Thanks,
> Xinmin
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Francesco Petrogalli via Phabricator [mailto:revi...@reviews.llvm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 10:29 AM
> To: francesco.petroga...@arm.com; cber...@us.ibm.com; acja...@us.ibm.com; 
> hahnf...@itc.rwth-aachen.de; a.bat...@hotmail.com
> Cc: Tian, Xinmin ; florian.h...@arm.com; 
> roger.ferreriba...@arm.com; amara.emer...@arm.com; renato.go...@linaro.org; 
> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
> Subject: [PATCH] D30739: [OpenMP] "declare simd" for AArch64 Advanced SIMD.
>
> fpetrogalli planned changes to this revision.
> fpetrogalli added a comment.
>
> Dear all,
>
> thank you for reviewing this patch. We found out an error in the spec and 
> would like to fix it before things are used.
>
> I will soon update this patch.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Francesco
>
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D30739
>
>
>

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any 
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any 
medium. Thank you.
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

RE: D30739: [OpenMP] "declare simd" for AArch64 Advanced SIMD.

[Tian, Xinmin via cfe-commits]

What is the error in the spec? 

Thanks,
Xinmin

-Original Message-
From: Francesco Petrogalli via Phabricator [mailto:revi...@reviews.llvm.org] 
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 10:29 AM
To: francesco.petroga...@arm.com; cber...@us.ibm.com; acja...@us.ibm.com; 
hahnf...@itc.rwth-aachen.de; a.bat...@hotmail.com
Cc: Tian, Xinmin ; florian.h...@arm.com; 
roger.ferreriba...@arm.com; amara.emer...@arm.com; renato.go...@linaro.org; 
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
Subject: [PATCH] D30739: [OpenMP] "declare simd" for AArch64 Advanced SIMD.

fpetrogalli planned changes to this revision.
fpetrogalli added a comment.

Dear all,

thank you for reviewing this patch. We found out an error in the spec and would 
like to fix it before things are used.

I will soon update this patch.

Thanks,

Francesco


https://reviews.llvm.org/D30739



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

RE: D30739: [OpenMP] "declare simd" for AArch64 Advanced SIMD.

[Tian, Xinmin via cfe-commits]

The current infrastructure for vector names generation works only for 
function definition. Ideally we should implement it also for function 
definition provided by external libraries

Right, we need to fix that  to support  #pragma omp declare simd on  function 
declaration as well to enable multiple module compilation via .h files for simd 
functions.  

Thanks,
Xinmin

-Original Message-
From: Francesco Petrogalli via Phabricator [mailto:revi...@reviews.llvm.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 6:13 AM
To: francesco.petroga...@arm.com; a.bat...@hotmail.com; cber...@us.ibm.com; 
acja...@us.ibm.com; hahnf...@itc.rwth-aachen.de
Cc: Tian, Xinmin ; florian.h...@arm.com; 
roger.ferreriba...@arm.com; amara.emer...@arm.com; renato.go...@linaro.org; 
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
Subject: [PATCH] D30739: [OpenMP] "declare simd" for AArch64 Advanced SIMD.

fpetrogalli added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30739#706292, @Hahnfeld wrote:

> In principal looks good to me although I'm not really familiar with this 
> part. Does that work for you if you have the `declare simd` in a header file 
> and the implementation in another file? On x86_64 I currently get:


The current infrastructure for vector names generation works only for function 
definition. Ideally we should implement it also for function definition 
provided by external libraries.

>   remark: loop not vectorized: call instruction cannot be vectorized
> 
> 
> But that seems to be a general problem inside LLVM's LoopVectorize pass...

AFAIK, none of the machinery required in LLVM to expose the mangled names in 
the vectorizer is present in trunk. There is a patch for x86 under review that 
does that: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22792


https://reviews.llvm.org/D30739



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits