[LLVMdev] RFC: Should we have (something like) -extra-vectorizer-passes in -O2? (original) (raw)
Chandler Carruth chandlerc at google.com
Thu Oct 16 11:52:19 PDT 2014
- Previous message: [LLVMdev] RFC: Should we have (something like) -extra-vectorizer-passes in -O2?
- Next message: [LLVMdev] RFC: Should we have (something like) -extra-vectorizer-passes in -O2?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
He had posted one earlier here:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20141006/238660.html (Arnold had posted some analysis here: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20141006/239144.html - which I imagine you saw)
Doh, sorry. I saw Arnold's analysis but (wrongly) assumed that a complete working test case wasn't available which is why Arnold expected loop-rotate to fix this when it didn't. My bad. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141016/6eb19691/attachment.html>
- Previous message: [LLVMdev] RFC: Should we have (something like) -extra-vectorizer-passes in -O2?
- Next message: [LLVMdev] RFC: Should we have (something like) -extra-vectorizer-passes in -O2?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]