.
Robert.
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Renato
Golin
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 7:14 AM
To: tpri...@computer.org
Cc: gcc
Subject: Re: Vectorizer Pragmas
On 17 February 2014 14:47, Tim Prince wrote:
> I'm co
On 17 February 2014 14:47, Tim Prince wrote:
> I'm continuing discussions with former Intel colleagues. If you are asking
> for insight into how Intel priorities vary over time, I don't expect much,
> unless the next beta compiler provides some inferences. They have talked
> about implementing a
On 2/17/2014 4:42 AM, Renato Golin wrote:
On 16 February 2014 23:44, Tim Prince wrote:
I don't think many people want to use both OpenMP 4 and older Intel
directives together.
I'm having less and less incentives to use anything other than omp4,
cilk and whatever. I think we should be able to
On 16 February 2014 23:44, Tim Prince wrote:
> I don't think many people want to use both OpenMP 4 and older Intel
> directives together.
I'm having less and less incentives to use anything other than omp4,
cilk and whatever. I think we should be able to map all our internal
needs to those pragma
On 2/16/2014 2:05 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
On 16 February 2014 17:23, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Compiler vendors (and users) have different ideas whether the SIMD pragmas
should give the compiler only a hint or completely override the compiler's
heuristics. In case of the Intel compiler, the user r
On 16 February 2014 17:23, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> As '#pragma omp simd' doesn't generate any threads and doesn't call the
> OpenMP run-time library (libgomp), I would claim that it only controls the
> tree vectorizer. (Hence, -fopenmp-simd was added as it permits this control
> without enabling th
Renato Golin wrote:
On 15 February 2014 19:26, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
GCC supports #pragma GCC ivdep/#pragma simd/#pragma omp simd, the last one
can be used without rest of OpenMP by using -fopenmp-simd switch.
Does the simd/omp have control over the tree vectorizer? Or are they
just flags for
On 15 February 2014 22:49, Tim Prince wrote:
> In my experience, the (somewhat complicated) gcc --param options work
> sufficiently well for specification of unrolling.
There is precedent for --param in LLVM, we could go this way, too.
Though, I can't see how it'd be applied to a specific functio
On 2/15/2014 3:36 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
On 15 February 2014 19:26, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
GCC supports #pragma GCC ivdep/#pragma simd/#pragma omp simd, the last one
can be used without rest of OpenMP by using -fopenmp-simd switch.
Does the simd/omp have control over the tree vectorizer? Or ar
On 15 February 2014 19:26, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> GCC supports #pragma GCC ivdep/#pragma simd/#pragma omp simd, the last one
> can be used without rest of OpenMP by using -fopenmp-simd switch.
Does the simd/omp have control over the tree vectorizer? Or are they
just flags for the omp implementati
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 06:56:42PM +, Renato Golin wrote:
> 1. Local pragma (#pragma vectorize), which is losing badly on the
> argument that it's yet-another pragma to do mostly the same thing many
> others do.
>
> 2. Using OMP SIMD pragmas (#pragma simd, #pragma omp simd) which is
> already
11 matches
Mail list logo
