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?
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. Tyler Nowicki On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:44 AM Michael Kruse via Phabricator < 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 > > > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
