Tyler, Thanks!
+ PP.Diag(Tok.getLocation(), diag::err_expected) << + "vectorize, or interleave"; + return; Remove the comma before the "or". + PP.Diag(Tok.getLocation(), diag::err_expected) << + "vectorize, or interleave"; + return; Same here. (and several other places) + // Read optimization option identifier Please make comments complete sentences where practical. And, most importantly, this needs a documentation update! -Hal ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tyler Nowicki" <[email protected]> > To: "Hal J. Finkel" <[email protected]>, "Chandler Carruth" > <[email protected]> > Cc: "Alexey Bataev" <[email protected]>, "Nadav Rotem" > <[email protected]>, "llvm cfe" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 6:54:27 PM > Subject: Re: [PATCH] #pragma vectorize > > > > Please review this updated patch. It includes the changes we > discussed. Thanks for all your input! > > > Tyler > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Tyler Nowicki < [email protected] > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Hal, > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way... what about? > > pragma loop vectorize(width/enable/disable) > interleave(count/enable/disable) > > > > I like this more, especially because its clear it applies only to > loops. > > > > > > enable/disable don’t add > anything that isn’t already part of pragma vectorize enable/disable, > and specifying `#pragma vectorize disable’ would disable > interleaving. > > But that's a bug. Are you sure that's what happens? > > > > I could be mistaken. This is what is in LoopVectorize at the top of > processLoop() > > > > if (Hints.Force == 0) { > DEBUG(dbgs() << "LV: Not vectorizing: #pragma vectorize disable.\n"); > return false; > } > > > And the unrolling occurs later in processLoop(). I thought it was a > feature… but yea, lets fix it. > > > > > > > > As for safety, how about #pragma vectorize aggressive? > > I don't like that; *that* sounds like a cost-model adjustment. The > user is asserting something about the property of the loop, and we > should try to capture that property. Although this may just be > confusing, "vectorizable" is what we mean. > > > `nodependence’? > Thanks, > > > Tyler _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > > -- 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
