[llvm] r190916 - Lift alignment restrictions for load/store folding on VINSERTF128/VEXTRACTF128. Fixes PR17268. [PATCH]

[Pekka Jääskeläinen]

Thanks!

Should I commit this to LLVM 3.4?

On 12/03/2013 06:42 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote:
> Committed in r196294.
>
> I chose to put the logic of disabling the vectorizer into opt, like Hal initially suggested. I think it makes more sense to push the flags higher up into the tools. The pass manager builder should be configured by setting its fields (Builder.LoopVectorize, etc.) . Otherwise, we end up with horrible logic in the pass manager builder.
>
>
> On Dec 3, 2013, at 7:57 AM, Pekka Jääskeläinen <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> wrote:
>
>> Ping.
>> Is there something I can do to get this moving forward to LLVM 3.4?
>>
>> On 11/22/2013 03:57 PM, Pekka Jääskeläinen wrote:
>>> OK,
>>>
>>> So this will enable to control the vectorizers enabled in opt -O3 by
>>> adding -fno-slp-vectorizer or similar? Sounds good to me. I propose
>>> including it also in 3.4 as it causes major headaches in our
>>> TCE target.
>>>
>>> On 11/21/2013 08:29 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 21, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "Arnold Schwaighofer" <aschwaighofer at apple.com>
>>>>>> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
>>>>>> Cc: "Commit Messages and Patches for LLVM"
>>>>>> <llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com>
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 11:54:05 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [llvm] r190916 - Lift alignment restrictions for
>>>>>> load/store folding on VINSERTF128/VEXTRACTF128. Fixes
>>>>>> PR17268. [PATCH]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, I see. We used to use the cl::opt flag for communicating settings
>>>>>> from the front-end.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, we want it to override settings from the front end (be it opt or
>>>>>> clang):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So we want something like:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Although we may want to check for getNumOccurrences() > 0
>>>>> instead of getPosition() just to be clearer.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Absolutely.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --Pekka
>


-- 
--Pekka