----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nadav Rotem" <[email protected]> > To: "Hal Finkel" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Tyler Nowicki" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Alexey > Bataev" <[email protected]>, > "Alexander Musman" <[email protected]>, "Chandler Carruth" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:44:21 PM > Subject: Re: [PATCH] #pragma vectorize > > > > > On Apr 22, 2014, at 10:38 AM, Hal Finkel < [email protected] > wrote: > > > Okay, this is reasonable, but I'm still not sure it should be in a > pragma called 'vectorize'. This particular transformation can be > applied (and more often than not is applied) to scalar code. > Strictly speaking it is an optimization that exposes ILP, and has > little to do with vectorization. > > > This is a good point. Maybe ILP would be a better name?
No, actually I like widen better because it is an action word. I don't think that ILP gives any idea of what the compiler is being asked to do. Not that I'm in love with widen, but I don't have a better suggestion -- unsequenced_unrolling or unsequenced_iterations, etc. all seem a bit bulky ;) -Hal > > > > > > That having been said, the fact that the correctness model for this > 'widening' operation is similar (although not identical) to that for > vectorization, and thus implemented by the vectorizer, is not facet > of the implementation we should expose to the user. However, pragma > widen is fine with me too. > -- Hal Finkel Assistant Computational Scientist Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
