On 10/31/2011 03:23 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 03:53:37PM +0200, Toon Moene wrote:
I wonder whether it will work with the attached Fortran routine - it
sure would mean a boost to the 18%+ heaviest CPU user in our code.
Would be nice to cut down slightly this testcase
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 03:23:32PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Would be nice to cut down slightly this testcase into just one or two loops
> that are vectorized and turn it into a runtime testcase which verifies
> the vectorization was correct.
Here is one such testcase (though, in your case the
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 03:53:37PM +0200, Toon Moene wrote:
> I wonder whether it will work with the attached Fortran routine - it
> sure would mean a boost to the 18%+ heaviest CPU user in our code.
It didn't do anything, but only because I used a bad approach in
vect_check_gather. I have been u
On 10/26/2011 11:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
This patch implements gather vectorization with -mavx2, if
dr_may_alias (which apparently doesn't use tbaa :(( ) can figure out
there is no overlap with stores in the loop (if any).
The testcases show what is possible to get vectorized.
Hmmm,
On 10/26/2011 11:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
This patch implements gather vectorization with -mavx2, if
dr_may_alias (which apparently doesn't use tbaa :(( ) can figure out
there is no overlap with stores in the loop (if any).
The testcases show what is possible to get vectorized.
I chose t
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:59:48PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > It is also because of re-use of memory via memcpy (yes, some dubious
> > > TBAA case from C, but essentially we don't want to brea
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:59:48PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > It is also because of re-use of memory via memcpy (yes, some dubious
> > TBAA case from C, but essentially we don't want to break that). Thus
> > we can't use TBAA on anonymous memory
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:59:48PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> It is also because of re-use of memory via memcpy (yes, some dubious
> TBAA case from C, but essentially we don't want to break that). Thus
> we can't use TBAA on anonymous memory.
No, IMHO we always use a ref_all mem access in t
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 02:01:36PM +0400, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> > this looks really cool. I have a liitle question, since I do not
> > understand vectorizer as good.
> >
> > Say, we have a snippet:
> > int *p;
> > int idx[N];
> > int arr[M];
> > for (.
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 02:01:36PM +0400, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> this looks really cool. I have a liitle question, since I do not
> understand vectorizer as good.
>
> Say, we have a snippet:
> int *p;
> int idx[N];
> int arr[M];
> for (...)
> {
> p[i%4] += arr[idx[I]];
> }
> As far as I understa
Hi Jacob,
this looks really cool. I have a liitle question, since I do not
understand vectorizer as good.
Say, we have a snippet:
int *p;
int idx[N];
int arr[M];
for (...)
{
p[i%4] += arr[idx[I]];
}
As far as I understand, we cannot do gather we, since p may point to
somewere in arr,
and, idx ma
11 matches
Mail list logo
