.
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
Folks,
One of the things that we've been discussing for a while and there are
just too many options out there and none fits exactly what we're
looking for (obviously), is the vectorization control pragmas.
Our initial semantics is working on on a specific loop / lexical block to:
* turn vectoriz
12 matches
Mail list logo
