sdesmalen accepted this revision.
sdesmalen added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaStmtAttr.cpp:144
+ assert(ValueExpr && "Attribute must have a valid value expression.");
+ if (S.CheckLoopHintExpr(ValueExpr, St->getBeginLoc()))
+ return nullptr;
----------------
david-arm wrote:
> fhahn wrote:
> > Is there a way to only accept `fixed_width/scalable` for targets that
> > support it? Not sure if we have enough information here, but we might be
> > able to reject it eg per target basis or something
> Hi @fhahn, I think if possible we'd prefer not to reject scalable vectors at
> this point. Theoretically there is no reason why we can't perform scalable
> vectorisation for targets that don't have hardware support for scalable
> vectors. In this case it simply means that vscale is 1. If you want we could
> add some kind of opt-remark in the vectoriser that says something like
> "target does not support scalable vectors, vectorising for vscale=1"?
I agree with @david-arm that we shouldn't prevent this in the front-end. Even
if the architecture may not support scalable vectors natively, there may still
be reasons to want to create scalable vectors in IR, for example to have more
portable IR.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGenCXX/pragma-loop.cpp:166
+#pragma clang loop vectorize_width(16, fixed) interleave_count(4)
unroll(disable) distribute(disable)
+ do {
+ // CHECK: br i1 {{.*}}, label {{.*}}, label {{.*}}, !llvm.loop
![[LOOP_15:.*]]
----------------
out of curiosity, is there a particular reason you're testing it with a
do-while loop instead of a shorter for-loop like the tests in
`for_template_constant_expression_test` ?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D89031/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D89031
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
