On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 1:50 PM Arvind Sankar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 04:15:59PM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, though additionally Arvind points out that this code is
> > > kind of curious if there was overlap; maybe th
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 04:15:59PM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, though additionally Arvind points out that this code is
> > kind of curious if there was overlap; maybe the parameters
> > should just be restrict-qualified.
> >
>
> Fo
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 3:54 PM Adrian Ratiu
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:51 AM Adrian Ratiu
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
>> wrote:
>> > +#pragma clang loop vecto
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 3:54 PM Adrian Ratiu wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:51 AM Adrian Ratiu
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
> >> wrote:
> >> > +#pragma clang loop vectorize(enable)
> >> > do {
> >> >
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:51 AM Adrian Ratiu
wrote:
On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
> +#pragma clang loop vectorize(enable)
> do {
> p1[0] ^= p2[0] ^ p3[0] ^ p4[0] ^ p5[0]; p1[1]
> ^= p2[1
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 02:39:59PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:39 PM Nick Desaulniers
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:36 PM Nick Desaulniers
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:15 PM Arvind Sankar
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 10
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:39 PM Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:36 PM Nick Desaulniers
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:15 PM Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:41:17PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:51 AM
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:36 PM Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:15 PM Arvind Sankar wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:41:17PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:51 AM Adrian Ratiu
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nick De
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:15 PM Arvind Sankar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:41:17PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:51 AM Adrian Ratiu
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
> > > wrote:
> > > > +#pragma clang loop vectorize(enable)
> >
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:41:17PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:51 AM Adrian Ratiu
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
> > wrote:
> > > +#pragma clang loop vectorize(enable)
> > > do {
> > > p1[0] ^= p2[0] ^ p3[0] ^ p4[0] ^
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:51 AM Adrian Ratiu wrote:
>
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
> wrote:
> > +#pragma clang loop vectorize(enable)
> > do {
> > p1[0] ^= p2[0] ^ p3[0] ^ p4[0] ^ p5[0]; p1[1] ^=
> > p2[1] ^ p3[1] ^ p4[1] ^ p5[1];
> > ``` seems t
On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 3:50 AM Adrian Ratiu
wrote:
Hi Nathan,
On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nathan Chancellor
wrote:
> + Ard, who wrote this code.
>
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:14:36AM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
>> Due to a Clang bug [1] neon auto
On Sun, 8 Nov 2020 at 19:10, Arvind Sankar wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 08, 2020 at 12:40:14PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:14:36AM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> > > Due to a Clang bug [1] neon autoloop vectorization does not happen or
> > > happens badly with no gains and c
On Sun, Nov 08, 2020 at 12:40:14PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:14:36AM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> > Due to a Clang bug [1] neon autoloop vectorization does not happen or
> > happens badly with no gains and considering previous GCC experiences
> > which generated unopt
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:14:36AM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> Due to a Clang bug [1] neon autoloop vectorization does not happen or
> happens badly with no gains and considering previous GCC experiences
> which generated unoptimized code which was worse than the default asm
> implementation, it i
On Sat, 07 Nov 2020, Russell King - ARM Linux admin
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:14:36AM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/xor-neon.c b/arch/arm/lib/xor-neon.c
index e1e76186ec23..84c91c48dfa2 100644 ---
a/arch/arm/lib/xor-neon.c +++ b/arch/arm/lib/xor-neon.c @@
-18,6
On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 3:50 AM Adrian Ratiu
wrote:
Hi Nathan,
On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nathan Chancellor
wrote:
> + Ard, who wrote this code.
>
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:14:36AM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
>> Due to a Clang bug [1] neon auto
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:14:36AM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/xor-neon.c b/arch/arm/lib/xor-neon.c
> index e1e76186ec23..84c91c48dfa2 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/lib/xor-neon.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/lib/xor-neon.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,10 @@ MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> * Pull in the refe
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 3:50 AM Adrian Ratiu wrote:
>
> Hi Nathan,
>
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nathan Chancellor
> wrote:
> > + Ard, who wrote this code.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:14:36AM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> >> Due to a Clang bug [1] neon autoloop vectorization does not
> >> happen
Hi Adrian,
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 01:50:13PM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> I tested Arnd's kernel patch from the LLVM bugtracker [1], but with the
> Clang v10.0.1 I still get warnings like the following even though the
> __restrict workaround seems to affect the generated instructions:
>
> ./incl
Hi Nathan,
On Fri, 06 Nov 2020, Nathan Chancellor
wrote:
+ Ard, who wrote this code.
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:14:36AM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
Due to a Clang bug [1] neon autoloop vectorization does not
happen or happens badly with no gains and considering previous
GCC experiences whic
+ Ard, who wrote this code.
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:14:36AM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> Due to a Clang bug [1] neon autoloop vectorization does not happen or
> happens badly with no gains and considering previous GCC experiences
> which generated unoptimized code which was worse than the defau
22 matches
Mail list logo
