sdesmalen added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/docs/LanguageExtensions.rst:3034
+integer and the type of vectorization can be specified with an optional
+second parameter. In this case 'fixed' is the default and refers to fixed width
+vectorization, whereas 'scalable' indicates the compiler should use scalable
----------------
nit: s/In this case//
================
Comment at: clang/docs/LanguageExtensions.rst:3036
+vectorization, whereas 'scalable' indicates the compiler should use scalable
+vectors instead. In another variation of ``vectorize_width(fixed|scalable)``
+the user can hint at the type of vectorization to use without specifying
----------------
nit: Another use of vectorize_width is
================
Comment at: clang/docs/LanguageExtensions.rst:3038-3040
+the exact width. In both variants of the pragma if the target does not support
+scalable vectors then the vectorizer may decide to fall back on fixed width
+vectorization as the most profitable option.
----------------
nit: In both variants of the pragma the vectorizer may decide to fall back on
fixed width vectorization if the target does not support scalable vectors.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticParseKinds.td:1390
+def err_pragma_loop_invalid_vectorize_option : Error<
+ "vectorize_width loop hint malformed; use vectorize_width(X, 'fixed' or
'scalable') "
+ "where X is an integer, or vectorize_width('fixed' or 'scalable')">;
----------------
`use vectorize_width(X, fixed) or vectorize_width(X, scalable)`
(it may otherwise lead to confusion whether fixed/scalable needs quotes, same
below)
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/AttrImpl.cpp:46
+ else if (state == FixedWidth || state == ScalableWidth) {
+ value->printPretty(OS, nullptr, Policy);
+ if (state == ScalableWidth)
----------------
is there always a value, even when "vectorize_width(scalable)" is specified?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGLoopInfo.cpp:751-753
+ // they effectively want vectorization disabled. We leave the
+ // scalable flag unspecified in this case to avoid setting the
+ // vectorize.enable flag later on.
----------------
is that not something to fix in the code that conditionally sets
vectorize.enable later on instead of working around it here?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D89031/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D89031
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
