time), I definitely definitely
open a new review soon.
Cheers,
Sjoerd.
From: Michael Kruse
Sent: 25 October 2019 23:18
To: Jordan Rupprecht
Cc: Michael Kruse ; Hans Wennborg
; cfe-commits ; Hal Finkel
; Sjoerd Meijer
Subject: Re: r374288 - Recommit "[Cla
@sjoerdmeijer
Before recommitting, please re-open the patch review.
Michael
Am Do., 24. Okt. 2019 um 18:45 Uhr schrieb Jordan Rupprecht
:
>
> Reverted in 6d424a161bf3e52730371da0b9439ed93a8ce406 due to the issue
> described here. Should hopefully be a trivial fix forward.
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 20
Reverted in 6d424a161bf3e52730371da0b9439ed93a8ce406 due to the issue
described here. Should hopefully be a trivial fix forward.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 2:46 PM Michael Kruse
wrote:
> Am Mo., 21. Okt. 2019 um 23:44 Uhr schrieb Jordan Rupprecht
> :
> > At any rate, it sounds like this is not a co
Am Mo., 21. Okt. 2019 um 23:44 Uhr schrieb Jordan Rupprecht
:
> At any rate, it sounds like this is not a codegen bug at all, but just an
> over-eager warning?
That interpretation is different from mine. Codgen emits the following
from vectorize(disable)
!4 = !{!"llvm.loop.vectorize.enable", i1
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:12 PM Michael Kruse
wrote:
> Am Mo., 21. Okt. 2019 um 16:01 Uhr schrieb Jordan Rupprecht via
> cfe-commits :
> > There's also a curious failure caused by this patch (confirmed passing
> @r374287, failing @r374288):
>
> It's a warning, not a failure.
>
True. We build with
Am Mo., 21. Okt. 2019 um 16:01 Uhr schrieb Jordan Rupprecht via
cfe-commits :
> There's also a curious failure caused by this patch (confirmed passing
> @r374287, failing @r374288):
It's a warning, not a failure.
> $ cat /tmp/vectorize.cc
> void a() {
> #pragma clang loop vectorize(disable)
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:18 AM Hans Wennborg via cfe-commits
> wrote:
>>
>> As expected, this broke the Chromium build again (but it seems only at
>> -Oz this time).
>
>
> To be clear, is the desired behavior that the vectorization is performed even
> at -Oz? I suspect that it is, but I just
On 10/21/19 4:00 PM, Jordan Rupprecht via cfe-commits wrote:
There's also a curious failure caused by this patch (confirmed passing
@r374287, failing @r374288):
$ cat /tmp/vectorize.cc
void a() {
#pragma clang loop vectorize(disable)
for (;;)
;
}
$ clang++ -Werror -O3 -c /tmp/vectorize.cc
There's also a curious failure caused by this patch (confirmed
passing @r374287, failing @r374288):
$ cat /tmp/vectorize.cc
void a() {
#pragma clang loop vectorize(disable)
for (;;)
;
}
$ clang++ -Werror -O3 -c /tmp/vectorize.cc
/tmp/vectorize.cc:1:6: error: loop not interleaved: the optimi
As expected, this broke the Chromium build again (but it seems only at
-Oz this time).
I'm still not a big fan of the warning: the #pragma tells the compiler
to vectorize, and then vectorization doesn't happen -- that sounds
like a compiler bug to me, and instead of pushing the problem on the
deve
Author: sjoerdmeijer
Date: Thu Oct 10 01:27:14 2019
New Revision: 374288
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=374288&view=rev
Log:
Recommit "[Clang] Pragma vectorize_width() implies vectorize(enable)"
This was further discussed at the llvm dev list:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-d
11 matches
Mail list logo
