Ayal Zaks/Haifa/IBM wrote on 07/02/2007 23:17:54:
> ...
>
> >Ah, right... I wonder if we can keep the loop structure in place, even
> >after completely unrolling the loop - I mean the 'struct loop' in
> >'current_loops' (not the actual CFG), so that the "SLP in loops" would
have
> >a chance to at
...
>Ah, right... I wonder if we can keep the loop structure in place, even
>after completely unrolling the loop - I mean the 'struct loop' in
>'current_loops' (not the actual CFG), so that the "SLP in loops" would
have
>a chance to at least consider vectorizing this "loop".
Having a "loop" str
Hello,
> Ira Rosen/Haifa/IBM wrote on 06/02/2007 11:49:17:
>
> > Dorit Nuzman/Haifa/IBM wrote on 05/02/2007 21:13:40:
> >
> > > Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/02/2007 17:59:00:
> > >
> ...
> > >
> > > That's going to change once this project goes in: "(3.2) Straight-
> > > line
> Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/02/2007 18:16:05:
>
> > On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> ...
> > > Did you run some benchmarks?
> >
> > Not yet - I'm looking at the C++ SPEC 2006 benchmarks at the moment
> > and using vectorization there seems to do a lot of collateral d
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Dorit Nuzman wrote:
> Ira Rosen/Haifa/IBM wrote on 06/02/2007 11:49:17:
>
> > Dorit Nuzman/Haifa/IBM wrote on 05/02/2007 21:13:40:
> >
> > > Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/02/2007 17:59:00:
> > >
> ...
> > >
> > > That's going to change once this project goes
Ira Rosen/Haifa/IBM wrote on 06/02/2007 11:49:17:
> Dorit Nuzman/Haifa/IBM wrote on 05/02/2007 21:13:40:
>
> > Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/02/2007 17:59:00:
> >
...
> >
> > That's going to change once this project goes in: "(3.2) Straight-
> > line code vectorization" from htt
Dorit Nuzman/Haifa/IBM wrote on 05/02/2007 21:13:40:
> Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/02/2007 17:59:00:
>
> > On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > As we also only vectorize innermost loops I believe doing a
> > > > complete unrolling pass early will help i
Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 06.02.2007 11:19:15:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Dorit Nuzman wrote:
> > After sleeping on it, it actually makes a lot of sense to me to
schedule
> > complete loop unrolling before vectorization - I think it would either
> > simplify loops (sometimes creatin
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Dorit Nuzman wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> >
> ...
> > However...,
> >
> > I have seen cases in which complete unrolling before vectorization
> enabled
> > constant propagation, which in turn enabled significant simplification of
> > the code, thereby, in fact making a previousl
> Hi Richard,
>
>
...
> However...,
>
> I have seen cases in which complete unrolling before vectorization
enabled
> constant propagation, which in turn enabled significant simplification of
> the code, thereby, in fact making a previously unvectorizable loop (at
> least on some targets, due to the
Hello,
> >As we also only vectorize innermost loops I believe doing a
> >complete unrolling pass early will help in general (I pushed
> >for this some time ago).
> >
> >Thoughts?
>
> It might also hurt, though, since we don't have a basic block
> vectorizer. IIUC the vectorizer is able to turn
Hi Richard,
Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/02/2007 17:27:03:
...
>
> ...
>
> and we are later not able to do constant propagation to the
> second loop which we can do if we first unroll such small loops.
>
> As we also only vectorize innermost loops
by the way, we are working o
Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/02/2007 17:59:00:
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> >
> > > As we also only vectorize innermost loops I believe doing a
> > > complete unrolling pass early will help in general (I pushed
> > > for this some time ago).
> > >
> > > Though
Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/02/2007 18:16:05:
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Jan Hubicka wrote:
...
> > Did you run some benchmarks?
>
> Not yet - I'm looking at the C++ SPEC 2006 benchmarks at the moment
> and using vectorization there seems to do a lot of collateral damage
> (maybe n
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > currently with -ftree-vectorize we generate for
> >
> > for (i=0; i<3; ++i)
> > # SFT.4346_507 = VDEF
> > # SFT.4347_508 = VDEF
> > # SFT.4348_509 = VDEF
> > d[i] = 0.0;
>
> Also Tomas' patch is supposed to catch this sp
>
> Hi,
>
> currently with -ftree-vectorize we generate for
>
> for (i=0; i<3; ++i)
> # SFT.4346_507 = VDEF
> # SFT.4347_508 = VDEF
> # SFT.4348_509 = VDEF
> d[i] = 0.0;
Also Tomas' patch is supposed to catch this special case and convert it
into memset that should be subsequentl
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> > As we also only vectorize innermost loops I believe doing a
> > complete unrolling pass early will help in general (I pushed
> > for this some time ago).
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> It might also hurt, though, since we don't have a basic block vectorizer
As we also only vectorize innermost loops I believe doing a
complete unrolling pass early will help in general (I pushed
for this some time ago).
Thoughts?
It might also hurt, though, since we don't have a basic block
vectorizer. IIUC the vectorizer is able to turn
for (i = 0; i < 4; i+
Hi,
currently with -ftree-vectorize we generate for
for (i=0; i<3; ++i)
# SFT.4346_507 = VDEF
# SFT.4347_508 = VDEF
# SFT.4348_509 = VDEF
d[i] = 0.0;
for (j=0; j:;
vect_cst_.4501_723 = { 0.0, 0.0 };
vect_p.4506_724 = (vector double *) &D.76822;
vect_p.4502_725 = vect_p.45
19 matches
Mail list logo
