On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> Sorry about the delayed response, I've been away for some time.
>
>>
>> I don't exactly understand why the general transform is not advisable.
>> We already synthesize min/max operations.
>
>
>>
>> Can you elaborate on why you think tha
Sorry about the delayed response, I've been away for some time.
>
> I don't exactly understand why the general transform is not advisable.
> We already synthesize min/max operations.
>
> Can you elaborate on why you think that better code might be generated
> when not doing this transform?
The
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A colleague noticed that we were not vectorizing loops that had end of
> loop computations that were MIN type operations that weren't expressed
> in the form of a typical min operation. A transform from (i < x ) &&
> ( i < y)
Hi,
A colleague noticed that we were not vectorizing loops that had end of
loop computations that were MIN type operations that weren't expressed
in the form of a typical min operation. A transform from (i < x ) &&
( i < y) to ( i < min (x, y)) is only something that we should do in
these situat
