On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> Hi Richi,
>
> Apologies for the late response. I was on vacation.
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 09:04:58AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > void
> > > foo (int *__restrict__ a,
> > > int *__restrict__ b,
> > > int c)
> > > {
> > > int i;
> >
Hi Jakub,
Apologies for the late response.
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:05:24PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:54:08PM +0100, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> > Here's a compilable example:
> >
> > void
> > foo (int *__restrict__ a,
> > int *__restrict__ b,
> > int *__re
Hi Richi,
Apologies for the late response. I was on vacation.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 09:04:58AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 09:26:25AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> > >
>
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 09:26:25AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 02:19:32PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:54:08PM +0100, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> Here's a compilable example:
>
> void
> foo (int *__restrict__ a,
> int *__restrict__ b,
> int *__restrict__ c)
> {
> int i;
>
> for (i = 0; i < 8; i++)
> a[i] = b[i] * c[2];
> }
>
> This is vectorized by duplica
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 09:26:25AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 02:19:32PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 04:19:45PM +0100, Vidya Praveen w
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 02:19:32PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 04:19:45PM +0100, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 03:50:08PM +0100, Vidya Praveen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 02:19:32PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 04:19:45PM +0100, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 03:50:08PM +0100, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > > I can't really insist on the
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 04:19:45PM +0100, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 03:50:08PM +0100, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > I can't really insist on the single lane load.. something like:
> > > > >
> > > > > vc:V4SI[0] = c
> >
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:22:05AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 09:25:32AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 04:19:45PM +0100, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 03:50:08PM +0100, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> [...]
> > > > I can't really insist on the single lane load.. something like:
> > > >
> > > > vc:V4SI[0] = c
> > > > vt:V4SI = vec_duplicate:V4SI (vec_select:SI vc:V4SI
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 03:50:08PM +0100, Vidya Praveen wrote:
[...]
> > > I can't really insist on the single lane load.. something like:
> > >
> > > vc:V4SI[0] = c
> > > vt:V4SI = vec_duplicate:V4SI (vec_select:SI vc:V4SI 0)
> > > va:V4SI = vb:V4SI vt:V4SI
> > >
> > > Or is there any other way
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:24:56AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 07:02:52PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
> > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > This post details some thoughts on an
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 07:02:52PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > This post details some thoughts on an enhancement to the vectorizer that
> > > could take advantage of the SIMD instru
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 09:25:32AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > This post details some thoughts on an enhancement to the
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 07:02:52PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > This post details some thoughts on an enhancement to the vectorizer that
> > could take advantage of the SIMD instructions that allows indexed element
> > as an operand thus
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 09:25:32AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > This post details some thoughts on an enhancement to the vectorizer that
> > > could take advantage of the SIMD ins
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > This post details some thoughts on an enhancement to the vectorizer that
> > could take advantage of the SIMD instructions that allows indexed element
> > as an operand thus reducing the need f
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Vidya Praveen wrote:
Hello,
This post details some thoughts on an enhancement to the vectorizer that
could take advantage of the SIMD instructions that allows indexed element
as an operand thus reducing the need for duplication and possibly improve
reuse of previously loaded
Hello,
This post details some thoughts on an enhancement to the vectorizer that
could take advantage of the SIMD instructions that allows indexed element
as an operand thus reducing the need for duplication and possibly improve
reuse of previously loaded data.
Appreciate your opinion on this.
20 matches
Mail list logo
