On 07/02/2018 12:27 PM, Tyler Nowicki wrote:
> Hi Michael, Hal,
>
> Sorry it has been a while since I looked at this. My memory is a
> little fuzzy. The intent of 'assume_safety' is to tell LAA to
> skip dependency checking on loads and stores so the vectorizer doesn't
> stop as soon as it sees both in a loop. At the time 'assume_safety'
> was implemented the vectorizer was limited to inner-loops. I am not
> up-to-date but it seems to have the ability to perform some
> vectorization of non-inner loop instructions?
The infrastructure to support outer loops is under active development.
>
> If we can vectorize non-inner loop instructions then what behavior
> would make the most sense: 'assume_safety' applies to the same loop
> scope(s) as the other loop pragmas, or it applies to all nested loops?
>
> My opinion is that for consistency 'assume_safety' and similar options
> apply to the same scope(s) as 'vectorize(enable)'. But I am open to
> alternatives if others see it differently.
I agree. Should apply to the entire single loop under the pragma. This
proposed change is consistent with that.
-Hal
>
> Tyler Nowicki
>
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:44 AM Michael Kruse via Phabricator
> mailto:revi...@reviews.llvm.org>> wrote:
>
> Meinersbur added a comment.
>
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48808#1149534, @ABataev wrote:
>
> > I don't think that this is the intended behavior of the `#pragma
> clang loop`. it is better to ask the author of this pragma is this
> correct or not.
>
>
> I understand it as the intended behavior of the `assume_safety`
> option (also used for `#pragma omp simd`).
>
> @tyler.nowicki What is the intended behaviour?
>
>
> Repository:
> rC Clang
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D48808
>
>
>
--
Hal Finkel
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
