[llvm-dev] [RFC] Adding thread group semantics to LangRef (motivated by GPUs)
Jan Sjodin via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Feb 1 07:32:31 PST 2019
> Strong agree with Mehdi, I am also not really sure what is the
> proposal at this point so it's hard to comment further.
> > There are a number of questions that I have. Do we need better
> > machine descriptions so that various resources can be considered? Do
> > we need the capability to reason about the machine state for the
> > cross-lane operations to enable more optimizations? Are intrinsics the
> > right representation, or should there be a set of new instructions,
> > since we are changing the execution model in a fundamental way? I'm
> > personally leaning towards new instructions, and a more comprehensive
> > machine model that can capture more, and hopefully allow more
> > optimizations in the future.
>
> It's totally up to you or whoever write the proposal, but my 2c as one
> of the nvptx backend maintainers is that we should think about what is
> the Simplest Thing That Could Possibly Work.
> Right now we have a correctness problem, and I expect you'll get a lot
> of sympathy on the list for fixing that with a minimal change to LLVM.
>
> But if we try instead to solve all of our conceivable GPU optimization
> problems in one fell swoop, I expect we'll get pushback, especially
> since it's not clear that these hypothetical optimizations are even
> that important.
We should at least have the simplest solution possible be part of the
greater solution, so that we don't add anything to the IR that will
have to be removed in the future. It is a big task for sure.
- Jan
On Thursday, January 31, 2019, 2:36:56 PM EST, Justin Lebar <jlebar at google.com> wrote:
Strong agree with Mehdi, I am also not really sure what is the proposal at this point so it's hard to comment further.
> There are a number of questions that I have. Do we need better machine descriptions so that various resources can be considered? Do we need the capability to reason about the machine state for the cross-lane operations to enable more optimizations? Are intrinsics the right representation, or should there be a set of new instructions, since we are changing the execution model in a fundamental way? I'm personally leaning towards new instructions, and a more comprehensive machine model that can capture more, and hopefully allow more optimizations in the future.
It's totally up to you or whoever write the proposal, but my 2c as one of the nvptx backend maintainers is that we should think about what is the Simplest Thing That Could Possibly Work.
Right now we have a correctness problem, and I expect you'll get a lot of sympathy on the list for fixing that with a minimal change to LLVM.
But if we try instead to solve all of our conceivable GPU optimization problems in one fell swoop, I expect we'll get pushback, especially since it's not clear that these hypothetical optimizations are even that important.
In any case I'm looking forward to reading what you come up with.
-Justin
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 7:19 AM Jan Sjodin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> This is a very important point, and I believe this is why we went with
> the convergent attribute a few years ago. I passively followed this
> thread from the beginning, but something that I think would really be
> key to start considering this "RFC" is an actual LangRef proposal. It
> seems hard to me to get an idea about the proposed trade-off of adding
> the burden of this new "thread-aware" semantic on the IR semantic
> itself (and on every existing and future transformations) without
> seeing the concrete proposal.
Yes it is difficult to know what the consequences are for the
intrinsics. There are a number of questions that I have. Do we need
better machine descriptions so that various resources can be
considered? Do we need the capability to reason about the machine
state for the cross-lane operations to enable more optimizations? Are
intrinsics the right representation, or should there be a set of new
instructions, since we are changing the execution model in a
fundamental way? I'm personally leaning towards new instructions, and
a more comprehensive machine model that can capture more, and
hopefully allow more optimizations in the future.
- Jan
On Thursday, January 31, 2019, 2:01:51 AM EST, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 7:20 AM Jan Sjodin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> > > for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
> > > foo = ballot(true); // ballot 1
> > >
> > > if (threadID /* ID of the thread within a wavefront/warp */ % 2 == 0) continue;
> > >
> > > bar = ballot(true); // ballot 2
> > > }
> > >
> > > versus:
> > >
> > > int i = 0;
> > > while (true) {
> > > do {
> > > if (i == 2) break;
> > > foo = ballot(true); // ballot 1
> > > i++;
> > > } while (threadID % 2 == 0);
> > >
> > > if (i == 2) break;
> > > bar = ballot(true); // ballot 2
> > > i++;
> > > }
> >
> > I think you can remove the second "i++", otherwise we can increment "i" twice
> > if threadID % 2 != 0, but I see the issue. Using the equivalence classes would
> > prevent this transform, since we have re-arranged the control flow in that way,
>
> What do you mean? Note that the transforms that lead from the first
> example to the second are actually desirable if there aren't any
> ballots or other convergent operations, so banning them entirely is a
> no-go. Otherwise, note that the ballot here can be nested arbitrarily
> deep, which means that jump forwarding/tail duplication has to be
> aware of the entire loop unless we have some kind of merge intrinsic.
Yes, if there weren't any calls to a ballot, then the transform would
be legal. What I was saying in the beginning was that ballot() would
have some special rules attached to it. It is of course undesirable to
have flags to enforce correctness, but that is the point we are at
right now.
> Also, I should say that while interesting, control equivalence classes
> can be part of the *implementation*, but not the *specification*. We
> need
> to define the semantics of the IR -- that is, how a program
> compiled from any given IR is allowed to do when executed (and *not*
> what it looks like when compiled) -- *first*, and then which
> transforms are allowed/not allowed will fall out of that. We can't
> start by listing disallowed transforms, because then when someone
> comes along and writes a new optimization, it might be technically
> "allowed" even though it breaks something in practice.
I think you misunderstand me if you think I was listing disallowed
transforms. My question was if it is possible to have multi-threaded
semantics in the source language, but in the compiler have a
single-threaded view, where some properties of the CFG would determine
what is legal and not for some functions with a special flag. I agree
it is more desirable to have the the semantics specified in the
IR. However, I am exploring this from a practical point of view, since
ballot() is very rare compared to all code that is being compiled for
all targets. These intrinsics would always have to be considered when
writing a pass. They seem to me harder to think about, and
test, for someone who is working on a single-threaded target, compared
to looking at a flag. If we allow ourselves to look at which
transforms that might violate these properties, we could would free up
the rest of the compiler (and developers) to not have to worry about
these things. Intrinsics would have to be maintained throughout the
entire compilation process in every pass.
This is a very important point, and I believe this is why we went with the convergent attribute a few years ago.I passively followed this thread from the beginning, but something that I think would really be key to start considering this "RFC" is an actual LangRef proposal.It seems hard to me to get an idea about the proposed trade-off of adding the burden of this new "thread-aware" semantic on the IR semantic itself (and on every existing and future transformations) without seeing the concrete proposal.
Thanks,
-- Mehdi
> The only way to
> conclusively prove that transforms will never break code that's
> supposed to work (except for bugs in the transforms) is to define the
> semantics of the IR, and then to make sure that it refines the
> semantics of the source language. This is why the LangRef almost never
> talks about allowed/disallowed transforms except as examples to
> explain some given semantics, and if you don't follow that rule, your
> patch will probably be rejected.
I'm trying to figure out if we are in the "almost never" territory
here or not.
> Now, to define a semantics for ballot(), we need to define what it's
> allowed to return for any given execution of any given program, and to
> do that, we need to define which threads must be active together when
> it's reached, which in turns means we need to define when control flow
> can re-converge somehow. Any proposal for how to handle ballot() must
> start here.
> > I'm not sure if using these rules will be easier or harder than dealing with
> > intrinsics. One problem is that the rules for single-threaded code might seem
> > arbitrary, and it would be hard to reason about them in a larger context.
> > What happens to new control flow created by transforms, and what will guide
> > the insertion of intrinsics in the new code? Code structurization is one example
> > were this could happen.
> Hopefully, it's clear from the above how this all falls out. The
> frontend for e.g. GLSL or SPIR-V would have to insert the merge
> intrinsics to preserve the semantics of the source language. Any
> transforms must refine the semantics of the IR, although I can't think
> of a scenario where that would involve emitting any new merge
> intrinsics. Usually, structurized IR's have their own semantics about
> when control flow converges, so a code structurizer should respect the
> original semantics. AMDGPU has its own code structurizer that runs
> very late in the pipeline (although there are plans to remove it), so
> we might have to change that to make it respect the merge intrinsic
> intrinsics, and then we'll correctly implement them "for free".
Any transform that re-arranges control flow would potentially have to
know about the properties of ballot(), and the rules with respect to
the CFG (and maybe consider the target) to know where to insert the
intrinsics. I had the impression that the control flow convergence was
in part specified by what the target architecture can handle. One of
the more complicated cases would be linearization where the control
flow is completely rewritten, and is encoded in a variable that says
which basic block is the next one to execute. Another case is DCE,
where a ballot() could be eliminated, and it would potentially have to
remove a number of intrinsics to enable later optimizations (unless it
would affect performance?), so the intrinsics will require some
non-local updates.
> > > Would they only be present if ballot and similar functions are used, or do they
> > > have to be present everywhere?
> >
> > They'd only have to be present when ballot or other convergent
> > functions are called, since otherwise it doesn't matter when control
> flow re-converges. However, we may want to keep them around for
> performance reasons (usually destroying convergence points is bad for
> performance).
So we might have them without a ballot(), which would seem to make it
more difficult for structurizers or other transforms to maintain the
semantics and insert intrinsics.
> > How are uniform branches handled? Do they affect the convergence model?
> >
> We may be able to remove convergence points if branches are uniform.
> In Nicolai's proposal, I believe we'd want to remove a merge intrinsic
> when all the branches that it post-dominates that aren't also
> post-dominated by some other merge intrinsic are uniform.
I couldn't quite understand the last sentence, but I assume the
conditions would prevent removing convergence points that help
performance. Post-domination might not be adequate if there are loops
btw.
- Jan
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019, 6:29:52 AM EST, Connor Abbott <cwabbott0 at gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 9:09 PM Jan Sjodin <jan_sjodin at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
> > foo = ballot(true); // ballot 1
> >
> > if (threadID /* ID of the thread within a wavefront/warp */ % 2 == 0) continue;
> >
> > bar = ballot(true); // ballot 2
> > }
> >
> > versus:
> >
> > int i = 0;
> > while (true) {
> > do {
> > if (i == 2) break;
> > foo = ballot(true); // ballot 1
> > i++;
> > } while (threadID % 2 == 0);
> >
> > if (i == 2) break;
> > bar = ballot(true); // ballot 2
> > i++;
> > }
>
> I think you can remove the second "i++", otherwise we can increment "i" twice
> if threadID % 2 != 0, but I see the issue. Using the equivalence classes would
> prevent this transform, since we have re-arranged the control flow in that way,
What do you mean? Note that the transforms that lead from the first
example to the second are actually desirable if there aren't any
ballots or other convergent operations, so banning them entirely is a
no-go. Otherwise, note that the ballot here can be nested arbitrarily
deep, which means that jump forwarding/tail duplication has to be
aware of the entire loop unless we have some kind of merge intrinsic.
Also, I should say that while interesting, control equivalence classes
can be part of the *implementation*, but not the *specification*. We
need to define the semantics of the IR -- that is, how a program
compiled from any given IR is allowed to do when executed (and *not*
what it looks like when compiled) -- *first*, and then which
transforms are allowed/not allowed will fall out of that. We can't
start by listing disallowed transforms, because then when someone
comes along and writes a new optimization, it might be technically
"allowed" even though it breaks something in practice. The only way to
conclusively prove that transforms will never break code that's
supposed to work (except for bugs in the transforms) is to define the
semantics of the IR, and then to make sure that it refines the
semantics of the source language. This is why the LangRef almost never
talks about allowed/disallowed transforms except as examples to
explain some given semantics, and if you don't follow that rule, your
patch will probably be rejected.
Now, to define a semantics for ballot(), we need to define what it's
allowed to return for any given execution of any given program, and to
do that, we need to define which threads must be active together when
it's reached, which in turns means we need to define when control flow
can re-converge somehow. Any proposal for how to handle ballot() must
start here.
> I'm not sure if using these rules will be easier or harder than dealing with
> intrinsics. One problem is that the rules for single-threaded code might seem
> arbitrary, and it would be hard to reason about them in a larger context.
>
> > Nicolai's proposal solves this by having the frontend emit a merge intrinsic
> > before the i++ is emitted. This prevents the jump forwarding from occurring.
>
> I was thinking about getting through the single-thread view and the issues with
> that first, then I will think more about the multi-thread and explicit convergence.
>
> If we are done with the single-thread stuff for now these are the question that I
> have been thinking about with the multi-threaded view:
>
> What happens to new control flow created by transforms, and what will guide
> the insertion of intrinsics in the new code? Code structurization is one example
> were this could happen.
Hopefully, it's clear from the above how this all falls out. The
frontend for e.g. GLSL or SPIR-V would have to insert the merge
intrinsics to preserve the semantics of the source language. Any
transforms must refine the semantics of the IR, although I can't think
of a scenario where that would involve emitting any new merge
intrinsics. Usually, structurized IR's have their own semantics about
when control flow converges, so a code structurizer should respect the
original semantics. AMDGPU has its own code structurizer that runs
very late in the pipeline (although there are plans to remove it), so
we might have to change that to make it respect the merge intrinsic
intrinsics, and then we'll correctly implement them "for free".
>
> Would they only be present if ballot and similar functions are used, or do they
> have to be present everywhere?
They'd only have to be present when ballot or other convergent
functions are called, since otherwise it doesn't matter when control
flow re-converges. However, we may want to keep them around for
performance reasons (usually destroying convergence points is bad for
performance).
>
> How are uniform branches handled? Do they affect the convergence model?
We may be able to remove convergence points if branches are uniform.
In Nicolai's proposal, I believe we'd want to remove a merge intrinsic
when all the branches that it post-dominates that aren't also
post-dominated by some other merge intrinsic are uniform.
>
>
> - Jan
>
>
> On Monday, January 28, 2019, 11:16:36 AM EST, Connor Abbott <cwabbott0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 3:05 AM Jan Sjodin <jan_sjodin at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > for (...) {
> > > ballot();
> > > if (... /* non-uniform */) continue;
> > > }
> > >
> > > into
> > >
> > > for (...) {
> > > do {
> > > ballot();
> > > } while (... /* non-uniform */);
> > > }
> >
> > I'm not sure if I follow this example, could you and explain a bit more?
> > It looks to me that the condition in the "if" must be false (if the
> > same condition is used in the while), or we would
> > call ballot the wrong number of times.
>
> Yes, the idea is that the same condition is used in the if and the do-while. I think I messed up the example a little... in the second snippet, we're supposed to break out of the inner loop if the outer loop's exit condition is true. Here's a more concrete example:
>
> for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
> foo = ballot(true); // ballot 1
>
> if (threadID /* ID of the thread within a wavefront/warp */ % 2 == 0) continue;
>
> bar = ballot(true); // ballot 2
> }
>
> versus:
>
> int i = 0;
> while (true) {
> do {
> if (i == 2) break;
> foo = ballot(true); // ballot 1
> i++;
> } while (threadID % 2 == 0);
>
> if (i == 2) break;
> bar = ballot(true); // ballot 2
> i++;
> }
>
> From a single-threaded perspective, these two snippets are identical, even if ballot() writes to arbitrary memory. The first can easily get transformed to something like the second when LLVM decides to duplicate the final i++ through jump forwarding, and then re-interprets the loop as two nested loops and splits the loop header in two. This is what currently happens with DOOM when we try to enable subgroup operations with it. Let's say there are two threads in a wavefront. Then the execution trace mandated by SPIR-V for the first looks like:
>
> thread 0 | thread 1
> ballot 1 = 0b11 | ballot 1 = 0b11
> skipped | ballot 2 = 0b10
> ballot 1 = 0b11 | ballot 1 = 0b11
> skipped | ballot 2 = 0b10
>
> Now, contrast this with the execution trace that programmers would expect for the second example:
>
> thread 0 | thread 1
> ballot 1 = 0b11 | ballot 1 = 0b11
> ballot 1 = 0b01 | skipped
> skipped | ballot 2 = 0b10
> skipped | ballot 1 = 0b10
> skipped | ballot 2 = 0b10
>
> Nicolai's proposal solves this by having the frontend emit a merge intrinsic before the i++ is emitted. This prevents the jump forwarding from occurring.
>
>
> >
> > About the CSE, when would that be legal? I can imagine with uniform
> > branches that it could work, but would like to see an example to
> > fully understand this.
> >
> > I agree that it would be more conservative than if we model the threading,
> > but I'm not sure about the cost/benefit. I am mostly curious if it is
> > possible to have a single-thread view or not. Then we would have to
> > see if it is adequate.
> >
> > - Jan
> >
> > On Thursday, January 24, 2019, 10:31:47 AM EST, Connor Abbott <cwabbott0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I don't see how this would fix the continue vs. nested loop problem I
> > explained earlier. That is, how would this prevent turning:
> >
> > for (...) {
> > ballot();
> > if (... /* non-uniform */) continue;
> > }
> >
> > into
> >
> > for (...) {
> > do {
> > ballot();
> > } while (... /* non-uniform */);
> > }
> >
> > and vice versa? Note that there's no duplication going on here, and
> > the single-threaded flow of control is exactly the same.
> >
> > Another reason this isn't so great is that it prevents e.g. CSE on
> > ballots that actually should be combined, since you're modelling it as
> > a write. It seems like the optimizer is going to need some special
> > knowledge of convergent things that fake memory constraints can't give
> > us.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 4:06 PM Jan Sjodin <jan_sjodin at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I was looking into ballot() and how if it is possible to keep a single-threaded
> > > view of the code, but add some extra conditions that must hold after the
> > > transformation. I had the initial idea that each call to ballot() in a
> > > single-threaded program can be seen as a partial write to a memory
> > > location, and each location memory location is unique for every call site,
> > > plus there some externally observable side effect. We can abstract this
> > > away by tagging the calls, e.g. by using aliases.
> > >
> > > For example:
> > >
> > > if (...) {
> > > foo1 = ballot();
> > > } else {
> > > foo2 = ballot();
> > > }
> > >
> > > simply becomes:
> > >
> > > if (...) {
> > > foo1 = ballot_1();
> > > } else {
> > > foo2 = ballot_2();
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > if (...) {
> > > } else {
> > > }
> > > ballot();
> > >
> > > becomes
> > >
> > > if (...) {
> > > } else {
> > > }
> > > ballot_1();
> > >
> > > In the first case it would prevent combining the two calls into one
> > > after the if. In the second example there is generally nothing that
> > > says it could not be transformed into the first example with two
> > > calls to ballot_1(), which should not be allowed.
> > >
> > > Another form of duplication that we must allow are loop transforms,
> > > like unrolling or peeling. These might seem similar to the example
> > > above, since we are cloning code and with conditions etc. But
> > > they are different since they calls are in different loop iterations.
> > >
> > > The condition that needs to be met is that:
> > >
> > > There must be a single path between all cloned ballot_n() functions.
> > >
> > > The reason for this condition is that if we clone the same call, then
> > > the copies must be mutually exclusive, but if they are cloned from
> > > a loop, there must be a path, or we would skip iterations.
> > >
> > > If we want to be more sophisticated we can add:
> > >
> > > If there is no such path, the calls must be separated by uniform branches.
> > >
> > > After the transform everything should be re-tagged, since we already
> > > checked the calls and we don't want to check them again. Also, not all
> > > transforms need (or should) have the tagging checked. One example is
> > > inlining, where multiple copies are created, but they are clearly different
> > > calls. The tagging can be done temporarily for a single pass, and then
> > > eliminated. This could be a good tool for debugging as well, since it can
> > > detect if a transform is suspect.
> > >
> > > The code would of course have to make sense as far as control flow. If
> > > we have:
> > >
> > > for(;;) {
> > > if(...) {
> > > ballot();
> > > break;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > This would have to be translated to:
> > >
> > > for(;;) {
> > > if(...) {
> > > ballot();
> > > if(UnknownConstant) { // Not a uniform condition, but later on translated to "true"
> > > break;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > However, I think that this is the way the code is generated today anyway.
> > > There would have to be some attribute that indicate that these calls (or functions)
> > > contain ballot or other cross-lane operations so they could be tagged and
> > > checked. The attribute would be used by the passes to know that the special
> > > conditions exist for those calls.
> > >
> > > As far as what it means to have a path, it could be complicated.
> > > For example:
> > >
> > > x = ...
> > > ballot_1();
> > >
> > > could be transformed to:
> > >
> > > if (x < 4711) {
> > > ballot_1();
> > >
> > > if(x >= 4711) {
> > > ballot_1();
> > > }
> > >
> > > So a simple path check would say there is a path, and the transform is legal,
> > > but if we examine the conditions, there is no path, and the transform should not be legal.
> > > It could be made even more obscure of course, but I don't see any optimizations really
> > > doing this kind of thing,
> > >
> > > - Jan
> > >
> > > On Saturday, December 29, 2018, 11:32:25 AM EST, Nicolai Hähnle via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 20.12.18 18:03, Connor Abbott wrote:
> > > > We already have the notion of "convergent" functions like
> > > > syncthreads(), to which we cannot add control-flow dependencies.
> > > > That is, it's legal to hoist syncthreads out of an "if", but it's
> > > > not legal to sink it into an "if". It's not clear to me why we
> > > > can't have "anticonvergent" (terrible name) functions which cannot
> > > > have control-flow dependencies removed from them? ballot() would be
> > > > both convergent and anticonvergent.
> > > >
> > > > Would that solve your problem?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think it's important to note that we already have such an attribute,
> > > > although with the opposite sense - it's impossible to remove control
> > > > flow dependencies from a call unless you mark it as "speculatable".
> > >
> > > This isn't actually true. If both sides of an if/else have the same
> > > non-speculative function call, it can still be moved out of control flow.
> > >
> > > That's because doing so doesn't change anything at all from a
> > > single-threaded perspective. Hence why I think we should model the
> > > communication between threads honestly.
> > >
> > >
> > > > However, this doesn't prevent
> > > >
> > > > if (...) {
> > > > } else {
> > > > }
> > > > foo = ballot();
> > > >
> > > > from being turned into
> > > >
> > > > if (...) {
> > > > foo1 = ballot();
> > > > } else {
> > > > foo2 = ballot();
> > > > }
> > > > foo = phi(foo1, foo2)
> > > >
> > > > and vice versa. We have a "noduplicate" attribute which prevents
> > > > transforming the first into the second, but not the other way around. Of
> > > > course we could keep going this way and add a "nocombine" attribute to
> > > > complement noduplicate. But even then, there are even still problematic
> > > > transforms. For example, take this program, which is simplified from a
> > > > real game that doesn't work with the AMDGPU backend:
> > > >
> > > > while (cond1 /* uniform */) {
> > > > ballot();
> > > > ...
> > > > if (cond2 /* non-uniform */) continue;
> > > > ...
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > In SPIR-V, when using structured control flow, the semantics of this are
> > > > pretty clearly defined. In particular, there's a continue block after
> > > > the body of the loop where control flow re-converges, and the only back
> > > > edge is from the continue block, so the ballot is in uniform control
> > > > flow. But LLVM will get rid of the continue block since it's empty, and
> > > > re-analyze the loop as two nested loops, splitting the loop header in
> > > > two, producing a CFG which corresponds to this:
> > > >
> > > > while (cond1 /* uniform */) {
> > > > do {
> > > > ballot();
> > > > ...
> > > > } while (cond2 /* non-uniform */);
> > > > ...
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Now, in an implementation where control flow re-converges at the
> > > > immediate post-dominator, this won't do the right thing anymore. In
> > > > order to handle it correctly, you'd effectively need to always flatten
> > > > nested loops, which will probably be really bad for performance if the
> > > > programmer actually wanted the second thing. It also makes it impossible
> > > > when translating a high-level language to LLVM to get the "natural"
> > > > behavior which game developers actually expect. This is exactly the sort
> > > > of "spooky action at a distance" which makes me think that everything
> > > > we've done so far is really insufficient, and we need to add an explicit
> > > > notion of control-flow divergence and reconvergence to the IR. We need a
> > > > way to say that control flow re-converges at the continue block, so that
> > > > LLVM won't eliminate it, and we can vectorize it correctly without
> > > > penalizing cases where it's better for control flow not to re-converge.
> > >
> > > Well said!
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Nicolai
> > > --
> > > Lerne, wie die Welt wirklich ist,
> > > Aber vergiss niemals, wie sie sein sollte.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev _______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190201/4f4dcc4e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list