On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 1:50 PM Arvind Sankar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 04:15:59PM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, though additionally Arvind points out that this code is
> > > kind of curious if there was overlap; maybe th
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 04:15:59PM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, though additionally Arvind points out that this code is
> > kind of curious if there was overlap; maybe the parameters
> > should just be restrict-qualified.
> >
>
> Fo
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 3:54 PM Adrian Ratiu
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:51 AM Adrian Ratiu
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
>> wrote:
>> > +#pragma clang loop vecto
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 3:54 PM Adrian Ratiu wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:51 AM Adrian Ratiu
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
> >> wrote:
> >> > +#pragma clang loop vectorize(enable)
> >> > do {
> >> >
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:51 AM Adrian Ratiu
wrote:
On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
> +#pragma clang loop vectorize(enable)
> do {
> p1[0] ^= p2[0] ^ p3[0] ^ p4[0] ^ p5[0]; p1[1]
> ^= p2[1
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 02:39:59PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:39 PM Nick Desaulniers
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:36 PM Nick Desaulniers
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:15 PM Arvind Sankar
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 10
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:39 PM Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:36 PM Nick Desaulniers
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:15 PM Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:41:17PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:51 AM
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:36 PM Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:15 PM Arvind Sankar wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:41:17PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:51 AM Adrian Ratiu
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nick De
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:15 PM Arvind Sankar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:41:17PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:51 AM Adrian Ratiu
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
> > > wrote:
> > > > +#pragma clang loop vectorize(enable)
> >
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:41:17PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:51 AM Adrian Ratiu
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
> > wrote:
> > > +#pragma clang loop vectorize(enable)
> > > do {
> > > p1[0] ^= p2[0] ^ p3[0] ^ p4[0] ^
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:51 AM Adrian Ratiu wrote:
>
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
> wrote:
> > +#pragma clang loop vectorize(enable)
> > do {
> > p1[0] ^= p2[0] ^ p3[0] ^ p4[0] ^ p5[0]; p1[1] ^=
> > p2[1] ^ p3[1] ^ p4[1] ^ p5[1];
> > ``` seems t
On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 3:50 AM Adrian Ratiu
wrote:
Hi Nathan,
On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nathan Chancellor
wrote:
> + Ard, who wrote this code.
>
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:14:36AM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
>> Due to a Clang bug [1] neon auto
On Sun, 8 Nov 2020 at 19:10, Arvind Sankar wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 08, 2020 at 12:40:14PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:14:36AM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> > > Due to a Clang bug [1] neon autoloop vectorization does not happen or
> > > happens badly with no gains and c
On Sun, Nov 08, 2020 at 12:40:14PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:14:36AM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> > Due to a Clang bug [1] neon autoloop vectorization does not happen or
> > happens badly with no gains and considering previous GCC experiences
> > which generated unopt
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:14:36AM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> Due to a Clang bug [1] neon autoloop vectorization does not happen or
> happens badly with no gains and considering previous GCC experiences
> which generated unoptimized code which was worse than the default asm
> implementation, it i
On Sat, 07 Nov 2020, Russell King - ARM Linux admin
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:14:36AM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/xor-neon.c b/arch/arm/lib/xor-neon.c
index e1e76186ec23..84c91c48dfa2 100644 ---
a/arch/arm/lib/xor-neon.c +++ b/arch/arm/lib/xor-neon.c @@
-18,6
On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 3:50 AM Adrian Ratiu
wrote:
Hi Nathan,
On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nathan Chancellor
wrote:
> + Ard, who wrote this code.
>
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:14:36AM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
>> Due to a Clang bug [1] neon auto
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:14:36AM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/xor-neon.c b/arch/arm/lib/xor-neon.c
> index e1e76186ec23..84c91c48dfa2 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/lib/xor-neon.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/lib/xor-neon.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,10 @@ MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> * Pull in the refe
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 3:50 AM Adrian Ratiu wrote:
>
> Hi Nathan,
>
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nathan Chancellor
> wrote:
> > + Ard, who wrote this code.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:14:36AM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> >> Due to a Clang bug [1] neon autoloop vectorization does not
> >> happen
Hi Adrian,
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 01:50:13PM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> I tested Arnd's kernel patch from the LLVM bugtracker [1], but with the
> Clang v10.0.1 I still get warnings like the following even though the
> __restrict workaround seems to affect the generated instructions:
>
> ./incl
Hi Nathan,
On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nathan Chancellor
wrote:
+ Ard, who wrote this code.
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:14:36AM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
Due to a Clang bug [1] neon autoloop vectorization does not
happen or happens badly with no gains and considering previous
GCC experiences whic
+ Ard, who wrote this code.
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:14:36AM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> Due to a Clang bug [1] neon autoloop vectorization does not happen or
> happens badly with no gains and considering previous GCC experiences
> which generated unoptimized code which was worse than the defau
Due to a Clang bug [1] neon autoloop vectorization does not happen or
happens badly with no gains and considering previous GCC experiences
which generated unoptimized code which was worse than the default asm
implementation, it is safer to default clang builds to the known good
generic implementati
23 matches
Mail list logo
