[LLVMdev] [PATCH] parallel loop awareness to the LoopVectorizer

Redmond, Paul paul.redmond at intel.com
Mon Jan 28 11:23:09 PST 2013

It sounds like a good idea to move the method in to Loop.

Is there a naming scheme for metadata? I think llvm.loop.* would be helpful for loop-specific metadata. As for parallel I think it is a little too generic. If ivdep are the semantics you're going for I'd use that.


On 2013-01-28, at 12:03 PM, Pekka Jääskeläinen wrote:

> On 01/28/2013 06:45 PM, Nadav Rotem wrote:
>> I am okay with this patch, assuming that you follow the review of Tobias
>> and Renato and provide a separate patch for the min-iter-count and a few
>> test cases.
> OK. Any opinions on the location of the isParallelLoop() check? Shall I
> put it to Loop so it is more widely accessible? I.e. Loop->isParallel().
> -- 
> Pekka
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list