ldy
>Hernandez (al...@redhat.com); Jeff Law
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] Merging Cilk Plus into Trunk (Patch 1 of approximately 22)
>
>On 09/11/2012 10:14 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>> The function mangling handles several of the version inconsistencies
>> you have mentioned. If the CPU rev
On 09/11/2012 10:14 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> The function mangling handles several of the version inconsistencies
> you have mentioned. If the CPU revisions, vector lengths are not the
> same between the function declaration and the function, then the name
> of the function will be different and
f Law
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] Merging Cilk Plus into Trunk (Patch 1 of approximately 22)
>
>On 09/10/2012 09:09 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>>> >If that's the case, what's the point in defining an external ABI and
>>> >defining what
>>> >__attribu
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:29:10PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
Note that, apart from preventing external calls, it removes this use case:
__attribute__((vector(4))) double mysqrt(double x){return sqrt(x);}
__m256d var;
mysqrt(var);
I don't think those
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:29:10PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> >Btw, this then happily fits into my suggestion that the "elementalness"
> >can be autodetected by the compiler simply by means of a proper IPA
> >pass and thus be fully LTO / whole-program aware. No need for an
> >attribute (where you
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
Whether or not the compiler creates a clone COULD BE totally up to the
compiler, based on whether or not vectorization is enabled,
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 03:57:44AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Btw, this then happily fits into my suggestion that the "elementalness"
>> > can be autodetected by the
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 03:57:44AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Btw, this then happily fits into my suggestion that the "elementalness"
>> > can be autodetected by the
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 03:57:44AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>
> > Btw, this then happily fits into my suggestion that the "elementalness"
> > can be autodetected by the compiler simply by means of a proper IPA
> > pass and thus be
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> Btw, this then happily fits into my suggestion that the "elementalness"
> can be autodetected by the compiler simply by means of a proper IPA
> pass and thus be fully LTO / whole-program aware. No need for an
> attribute (where you'd nee
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 09/10/2012 09:09 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>If that's the case, what's the point in defining an external ABI and
>defining what
>__attribute__((vector)) plac
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 09/10/2012 09:09 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>>> >If that's the case, what's the point in defining an external ABI and
>>> >defining what
>>> >__attribute__((vector)) placed on a function declaration means?
>
>> When you have __attribut
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 09/10/2012 09:11 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>> Can you please help me get a start on how to get can be done? From
>> what I understand (please correct me if I am wrong), this requires
>> rearranging and duplicating a lot of passes and c
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 09:30:15AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 09/10/2012 09:11 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > Can you please help me get a start on how to get can be done? From
> > what I understand (please correct me if I am wrong), this requires
> > rearranging and duplicating a lot of p
On 09/10/2012 09:09 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>> >If that's the case, what's the point in defining an external ABI and
>> >defining what
>> >__attribute__((vector)) placed on a function declaration means?
> When you have __attribute__((vector)) you are asking the compiler to
> create a vector AND
On 09/10/2012 09:11 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Can you please help me get a start on how to get can be done? From
> what I understand (please correct me if I am wrong), this requires
> rearranging and duplicating a lot of passes and can potentially open
> up to a lot of bugs.
Certainly not duplic
f Law
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] Merging Cilk Plus into Trunk (Patch 1 of approximately 22)
>
>On 09/07/2012 02:00 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>> So, if I am understanding this correctly, there is no way to have the
>> vectorization turned on/off on a function by function basis? I don
>-Original Message-
>From: Richard Henderson [mailto:r...@redhat.com]
>Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 12:03 PM
>To: Iyer, Balaji V
>Cc: Richard Guenther; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Gabriel Dos Reis; Aldy
>Hernandez (al...@redhat.com); Jeff Law
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] M
On 09/07/2012 12:31 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> I hope I have not mistaken your question, but to clarify the
> elemental function's definition and body is visible to all passes
> after the invocation of gimplify_function_tree (). It is also visible
> for the LTO optimization.
If that's the case, w
On 09/07/2012 02:00 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> So, if I am understanding this correctly, there is no way to have the
> vectorization turned on/off on a function by function basis? I don't
> mind if it is turned off for -O0, but would like it be turned on/off
> for anything > -O1.
There's probably
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> So, I assume it is OK for me to include testsuites with the
> code-changes? I included them separately because I remember someone in
> the mailing list saying the patch size must be small and one logical way
> is to put test cases separately from the
>-Original Message-
>From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
>Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 7:23 AM
>To: Iyer, Balaji V
>Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Aldy Hernandez (al...@redhat.com); Jeff Law;
>r...@redhat.com
>Subject: RE: [PATCH] Merging Cilk Plus i
On Sun, 9 Sep 2012, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Here is an updated patch. I think I have fixed all the changes you
> and others have mentioned. Please let me know if everything looks OK.
> Thanks again for doing the review!
Has the user documentation for this feature been posted? For patch r
se.
> (c_parser_elem_fn_vlength_clause): Likewise.
> (c_parser_elem_fn_expr_list): Likewise.
>
> =======================
>
>
>>-----Original Message-
>>From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jo
dhat.com
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] Merging Cilk Plus into Trunk (Patch 1 of approximately 22)
>
>On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 12:59:26PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> "Iyer, Balaji V" writes:
>> >
>> > Yes, I really like this idea and that is kind of what I want. But, how d
Jakub Jelinek writes:
>
> Nope, -O2 -ftree-vectorize works just fine. Vectorization only needs
> if-conversion, but that is enabled by default if -ftree-vectorize
> (unless explicitly disabled).
How about the tree unrolling? I remember that being enabled for the
vectorizer (and then annoying me
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 12:59:26PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> "Iyer, Balaji V" writes:
> >
> > Yes, I really like this idea and that is kind of what I want. But, how do I
> > turn on vectorization on a function by function basis? I tried to set
> > flag_tree_vectorize=1 but that doesn't seem to
"Iyer, Balaji V" writes:
>
> Yes, I really like this idea and that is kind of what I want. But, how do I
> turn on vectorization on a function by function basis? I tried to set
> flag_tree_vectorize=1 but that doesn't seem to do the trick.
AFAIK vectorization needs a range of passes to work, so
Hernandez
>(al...@redhat.com); Jeff Law
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] Merging Cilk Plus into Trunk (Patch 1 of approximately 22)
>
>On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 09/06/2012 02:37 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> In all this seems unrelated to CILK+ w
: Re: [PATCH] Merging Cilk Plus into Trunk (Patch 1 of approximately 22)
>
>"Iyer, Balaji V" writes:
>>>
>>>The answer is that you should not enable the vectorizer.
>>
>> OK. I will fix that.
>
>It still seems like useful functionality. Otherwise
"Iyer, Balaji V" writes:
>>
>>The answer is that you should not enable the vectorizer.
>
> OK. I will fix that.
It still seems like useful functionality. Otherwise you have to compile
the whole program with -O3, just to vectoriz a few marked functions or
add additional annotations for all of them
[PATCH] Merging Cilk Plus into Trunk (Patch 1 of approximately 22)
>
>On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>> Hello Richard,
>> I forgot to answer one of questions. Please see it below:
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Balaji V. Iyer.
>>
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 02:37 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> In all this seems unrelated to CILK+ work (even if you make use of this
>> from within CILK+).
>
> While true, we also asked him to split up the work. And this piece,
> done correctly, se
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Hello Richard,
> I forgot to answer one of questions. Please see it below:
>
> Thanks,
>
> Balaji V. Iyer.
>
>
>>+static tree
>>+handle_vector_attribute (tree *node, tree name ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
>>+ tree args ATTR
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> >Concepts such as "pentium_4" are architecture-specific and have no place in
> >front-end files. This whole mapping from one sort of string to another
> >belongs
> >within the back end.
>
> Please excuse me if I am "beating this horse to death." I am
>-Original Message-
>From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
>Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 12:18 PM
>To: Iyer, Balaji V
>Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Aldy Hernandez (al...@redhat.com); Jeff Law;
>r...@redhat.com
>Subject: RE: [PATCH] Merging Cilk P
Hello Richard,
I forgot to answer one of questions. Please see it below:
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
>+static tree
>+handle_vector_attribute (tree *node, tree name ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
>+ tree args ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
>+ int ARG_UNUSED (flags), bool *n
..@redhat.com); Jeff
>Law;
>r...@redhat.com
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] Merging Cilk Plus into Trunk (Patch 1 of approximately 22)
>
>On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Marc Glisse wrote:
>
>> AFAIU, my_func is defined in a separate library and because of the
>> attribute on the definition, it
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Iyer, Balaji V
>>> wrote:
Let's say we have two for loops like this:
int my_func (int x, int y);
For (ii = 0; ii < 1; ii++)
X[ii] = my_func (Y[ii], Z[ii]);
>>
>>I
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Ok, I was mistaken there. I thought we had to add a changelog entry for
> every function and not every file. I will fix it in the updated patch I
> send soon.
For functions in existing files you do need to mention each function - but
not for new file
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 02:37 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> In all this seems unrelated to CILK+ work (even if you make use of this
>> from within CILK+).
>
> While true, we also asked him to split up the work. And this piece,
> done correctly, s
V; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Aldy Hernandez
>(al...@redhat.com); Jeff Law; r...@redhat.com
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] Merging Cilk Plus into Trunk (Patch 1 of approximately 22)
>
>On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Iyer, Balaji V
>> wrote
On 09/05/2012 03:09 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> If we annotate *both* the function declaration and the function with the
> following attribute, the compiler will create a vector and scalar version of
> the function.
>
> __attribute__((vector)) my_func (int x, int y);
>
> __attribute__((vector)
l...@redhat.com); Jeff Law;
>r...@redhat.com
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] Merging Cilk Plus into Trunk (Patch 1 of approximately 22)
>
>On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>
>> Attached, please find the 1st of ~22 patches that implements Cilk
>> Plus. This patch wil
On 09/06/2012 02:37 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> In all this seems unrelated to CILK+ work (even if you make use of this
> from within CILK+).
While true, we also asked him to split up the work. And this piece,
done correctly, seems useful even if the rest of cilk is ignored.
r~
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Marc Glisse wrote:
AFAIU, my_func is defined in a separate library and because of the attribute
on the definition, it will actually export overloads:
int myfunc(int,int);
v2si myfunc(v2si,v2si);
v4si myfunc(v4si,v4si);
etc (where does it stop? seems problematic if the librar
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Iyer, Balaji V
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Let's say we have two for loops like this:
>>>
>>> int my_func (int x, int y);
>>>
>>> For (ii = 0; ii < 1; ii++)
>>>
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Iyer, Balaji V
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Let's say we have two for loops like this:
>>>
>>> int my_func (int x, int y);
>>>
>>> For (ii = 0; ii < 1; ii++)
>>>
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Let's say we have two for loops like this:
int my_func (int x, int y);
For (ii = 0; ii < 1; ii++)
X[ii] = my_func (Y[ii], Z[ii]);
I assume X, Y and Z are __restrict pointers (or so
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> Attached, please find the 1st of ~22 patches that implements Cilk
> Plus. This patch will implement Elemental Functions into the C compiler.
> Please check it in to the trunk if it looks OK.
>
> Below, I w
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Attached, please find the 1st of ~22 patches that implements Cilk
> Plus. This patch will implement Elemental Functions into the C compiler.
> Please check it in to the trunk if it looks OK.
>
> Below, I will give you a small example abou
51 matches
Mail list logo
