================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp:1634-1635
@@ -1630,3 +1633,4 @@
unsigned getOpenMPSimdDefaultAlignment(QualType) const override {
+ // FIXME: What about AVX512?
return getABIInfo().hasAVX() ? 32 : 16;
}
----------------
rjmccall wrote:
> ab wrote:
> > This I'm not sure; it makes sense to me to align to 64 when we have AVX512.
> >
> > There's also the WinX86_64 counterpart, which I'm even less confident about.
> I am pretty skeptical of even the original code here, frankly. Are clients
> really making stronger promises just because they're compiling with AVX
> enabled? Note that the compiler doesn't *do* anything to achieve this; it
> literally just makes a more aggressive assumption about what the user has
> done.
>
> It seems to me like the (1) the OpenMP people ought to review this and
> seriously consider it and (2) this number needs to be available to code in
> some portable manner, probably via a predefined macro. Which means it
> probably ought to be defined in the AST-level TargetInfo. CC'ing Alexey
> Bataev.
John, here is an excerpt from the OpenMP "If no optional parameter is
specified, implementation-defined default
alignments for SIMD instructions on the target platforms are assumed." So, the
value can be chosen by the compiler. But I think it is a good idea to have a
macro for this.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D9894
EMAIL PREFERENCES
http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
