Hi there!
I am developing software which tries to deliberately exploit the
compiler's autovectorization facilities by feeding data in
autovectorization-friendly loops. I'm currently using both g++ and
clang++ to see how well this approach works. Using simple arithmetic, I
often get good resul
[ To revisit https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-04/msg00385.html ]
The current formulation for the description of Stage 4 here (
https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html ) is:
...
During this period, the only (non-documentation) changes that may be
made are changes that fix regressions.
Other change
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, Tom de Vries wrote:
> [ To revisit https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-04/msg00385.html ]
>
> The current formulation for the description of Stage 4 here (
> https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html ) is:
> ...
> During this period, the only (non-documentation) changes that may be
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 08:41, Tom de Vries wrote:
>
> [ To revisit https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-04/msg00385.html ]
>
> The current formulation for the description of Stage 4 here (
> https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html ) is:
> ...
> During this period, the only (non-documentation) changes t
[ was: Re: [RFC] Update Stage 4 description ]
On 09-01-19 09:47, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, Tom de Vries wrote:
>
>> [ To revisit https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-04/msg00385.html ]
>>
>> The current formulation for the description of Stage 4 here (
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/
We've been running builds/regression tests for GCC 8.2 configured with
--enable-checking=all, and have observed some failures related to
garbage collection.
First problem:
The g++.dg/pr85039-2.C tests (I've looked in detail at -std=c++98, but
-std=c++11 and -std=c++14 appear to follow the sam
Hi Kay,
On 09/01/19 08:29, Kay F. Jahnke wrote:
Hi there!
I am developing software which tries to deliberately exploit the
compiler's autovectorization facilities by feeding data in
autovectorization-friendly loops. I'm currently using both g++ and
clang++ to see how well this approach works. U
On 1/9/19 9:45 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi Kay,
>
> On 09/01/19 08:29, Kay F. Jahnke wrote:
>> Hi there!
>>
>> I am developing software which tries to deliberately exploit the
>> compiler's autovectorization facilities by feeding data in
>> autovectorization-friendly loops. I'm currently using
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 09:50, Andrew Haley wrote:
> I don't agree. Sometimes vectorization is critical. It would be nice
> to have a warning which would fire if vectorization failed. That would
> surely help the OP.
Dave Malcolm has been working on something like that:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-pa
> First problem:
>
> The g++.dg/pr85039-2.C tests (I've looked in detail at -std=c++98, but
> -std=c++11 and -std=c++14 appear to follow the same pattern) see gcc
> garbage-collecting a live vector. A subsequent access to the vector with
> vec_quick_push causes a segmentation fault, as m_vecpfx.m
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 9:50 AM Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> On 1/9/19 9:45 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> > Hi Kay,
> >
> > On 09/01/19 08:29, Kay F. Jahnke wrote:
> >> Hi there!
> >>
> >> I am developing software which tries to deliberately exploit the
> >> compiler's autovectorization facilities by feed
On 09.01.19 10:45, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
There's plenty of work being done on auto-vectorisation in GCC.
Auto-vectorisation is a performance optimisation and as such is not really
a user-visible feature that absolutely requires user documentation.
Since I'm trying to deliberately exploit it, a
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:56:03AM +0100, Kay F. Jahnke wrote:
> The above is a typical example. So, to give a complete source 'vec_sqrt.cc':
>
> #include
>
> extern float data [ 32768 ] ;
>
> extern void vf1()
> {
> #pragma vectorize enable
> for ( int i = 0 ; i < 32768 ; i++ )
> data
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 12:03:45PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > The above is a typical example. So, to give a complete source 'vec_sqrt.cc':
> >
> > #include
> >
> > extern float data [ 32768 ] ;
> >
> > extern void vf1()
> > {
> > #pragma vectorize enable
> > for ( int i = 0 ; i < 32768
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:46 AM Joern Wolfgang Rennecke
wrote:
>
> We've been running builds/regression tests for GCC 8.2 configured with
> --enable-checking=all, and have observed some failures related to
> garbage collection.
>
> First problem:
>
> The g++.dg/pr85039-2.C tests (I've looked in de
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 12:48 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:46 AM Joern Wolfgang Rennecke
> wrote:
> >
> > We've been running builds/regression tests for GCC 8.2 configured with
> > --enable-checking=all, and have observed some failures related to
> > garbage collection.
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 12:48 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:46 AM Joern Wolfgang Rennecke
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > We've been running builds/regression tests for GCC 8.2 configured with
> > > --enable-checking=all, and have observed some failures related to
> > > gar
> On Jan 9, 2019, at 3:42 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>
> [ To revisit https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-04/msg00385.html ]
>
> The current formulation for the description of Stage 4 here (
> https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html ) is:
> ...
> During this period, the only (non-documentation) cha
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 2019, at 3:42 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >
> > [ To revisit https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-04/msg00385.html ]
> >
> > The current formulation for the description of Stage 4 here (
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html ) is:
> > .
On 1/9/19 4:02 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
+extra care on not introducing new regressions - fixing bugs at all cost
ISTM that this should be either "at any cost" or "at all costs". The
current wording can't make up its mind if it's singular or plural.
Agreed, as a native english speaker, 'at
On Wed, 2019-01-09 at 09:56 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 09:50, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > I don't agree. Sometimes vectorization is critical. It would be
> > nice
> > to have a warning which would fire if vectorization failed. That
> > would
> > surely help the OP.
>
> Dave
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:10:25AM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> extern void vf1()
> {
>#pragma vectorize enable
>for ( int i = 0 ; i < 32768 ; i++ )
> data [ i ] = std::sqrt ( data [ i ] ) ;
> }
>
> Compiling on this x86_64 box with -fopt-info-vec-missed shows the
> _7 = .SQRT (_1
7;t in
> sqrt-test.cc.104t.stdarg
> but is in
> sqrt-test.cc.105t.cdce
> so I think it's coming from the argument-range code in cdce.
>
> Arguably the location on the statement is wrong: it's on the loop
> header, when it presumably should be on the std::sqr
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, Paul Koning wrote:
> Is there, or should there be, a distinction between primary and
> non-primary platforms? While platform bugs typically require fixes in
> platform-specific code, I would think we would want to stay away from
> bugfixes in minor platforms during stage 4.
24 matches
Mail list logo
