----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tyler Nowicki" <[email protected]>
> To: "Hal Finkel" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "Alexey Bataev" <[email protected]>, "llvm cfe"
> <[email protected]>, "Nadav Rotem" <[email protected]>,
> "Alexander Musman" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 7:09:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] #pragma vectorize
>
>
> It would be very useful for auto-tuning libraries certainly. I am not
> sure how to support it currently. I suggest we leave it for a future
> commit.
I suspect that Alexey and Alexander can provide advice here. I don't see how
this is any different from the method used by the OpenMP pragrmas to support
this... look at test/OpenMP/simd_ast_print.cpp and how the simdlen clause
supports this.
I think that part of the problem is that you're restricting the form of the
value too early:
The code:
+ // Read the optimization value identifier.
+ PP.Lex(Tok);
+ if (Tok.isNot(tok::identifier) && Tok.isNot(tok::numeric_constant)) {
+ PP.Diag(Tok.getLocation(), diag::err_expected) <<
+ "enable, disable or integer value";
+ return;
+ }
+
+ Info->Value = Tok;
and:
+ if (Info->Value.is(tok::numeric_constant))
+ Hint.ValueExpr = Actions.ActOnNumericConstant(Info->Value);
looks wrong. We should parse arbitrary constant expressions here. The OpenMP
code for simdlen, etc. does this, please emulate that.
Thanks again!
-Hal
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Tyler
>
>
> On Apr 28, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Hal Finkel < [email protected] > wrote:
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
> From: "Tyler Nowicki" < [email protected] >
> To: "Alexander Musman" < [email protected] >
> Cc: "Alexey Bataev" < [email protected] >, "llvm cfe" <
> [email protected] >, "Nadav Rotem" < [email protected] >
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 6:53:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] #pragma vectorize
>
>
>
> Hi Alexander,
>
> Thanks for the review. I’ve updated the patch with your most of your
> suggestions.
>
> Please review the updated patch.
>
>
>
> Do you plan to support substitution of integer template parameters
> into pragma? Here is example:
>
>
> cat ploop.cpp
> template <int VLEN> void while_test(int *List, int Length) {
> int i = 0;
> #pragma loop vectorize(VLEN)
> while(i < Length) {
> List[i] = i*2;
> i++;
> }
> }
> int main() {
> int L[100];
> while_test<4> (L, 100);
> return 0;
> }
>
> I considered this, it is not currently supported. I’m not sure if it
> makes sense. Lets leave this as a topic of future work for now.
>
> This kind of use case *must* be supported, it is very important for
> libraries that auto-tune. Is there some reason that it is
> complicated to support?
>
> -Hal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ParsePragma.cpp:1619: // Read '('
> This looks like a good place to use BalancedDelimiterTracker for
> parsing '(' and ')’.
>
> I don’t think it is needed. It isn’t used by any other #pragma
> directives and the syntax here is rather simple. What do you think
> would be the benefit?
>
> 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
>
--
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
