Hello,
I have a code similar to the following:
program test
integer i, j, N
real B(10)
call bar(N, 8)
N = N+1
do i = 1, N
B(i) = (i+5)/(i+3)
enddo
j = N/2
N = N+7
call IMPORTANT_F(B, N, i, j)
end program
and I am trying to use dependence analysis on the second and fourth
actual parameters of IMPORTANT_F(). Since it's Fortran, they are
really pointers, and the IR of the last block looks like this:
%11 = sdiv i32 %1, 2 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
store i32 %11, i32* %j, align 4
%12 = add i32 %0, 8 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
store i32 %12, i32* %n, align 4
call void (...)* @IMPORTANT_F_([10 x float]* %b, i32* %n,
i32* %i, i32* %j) nounwind
ret void
My problem is that if I use getNonLocalPointerDependency() I get the
instruction "N=N+1" as a Def for the second parameter, "N",
and no
Def for the fourth, "j", (only the call to "bar()" as
clobber).
If I use getDependency() on the call, I get the instruction "N=N+7" as
a clobber.
How can I use MemoryDependenceAnalysis (or any other analysis for that
matter) to gather that the instructions
j = N/2 (store i32 %11, i32* %j, align 4)
and
N = N+7 (store i32 %12, i32* %n, align 4)
are the ones that define the parameters "j" and "N"
respectively?
thanks,
Anthony
On Apr 13, 2009, at 9:06 AM, Anthony Danalis wrote:> Hello, > > I have a code similar to the following:Hi Anthony, Can you please attach the .bc file for this? -Chris> > > program test > integer i, j, N > real B(10) > > call bar(N, 8) > N = N+1 > do i = 1, N > B(i) = (i+5)/(i+3) > enddo > > j = N/2 > N = N+7 > > call IMPORTANT_F(B, N, i, j) > > end program > > and I am trying to use dependence analysis on the second and fourth > actual parameters of IMPORTANT_F(). Since it's Fortran, they are > really pointers, and the IR of the last block looks like this: > > %11 = sdiv i32 %1, 2 ; <i32> [#uses=1] > store i32 %11, i32* %j, align 4 > %12 = add i32 %0, 8 ; <i32> [#uses=1] > store i32 %12, i32* %n, align 4 > call void (...)* @IMPORTANT_F_([10 x float]* %b, i32* %n, > i32* %i, i32* %j) nounwind > ret void > > My problem is that if I use getNonLocalPointerDependency() I get the > instruction "N=N+1" as a Def for the second parameter, "N", and no > Def for the fourth, "j", (only the call to "bar()" as clobber). > If I use getDependency() on the call, I get the instruction "N=N+7" as > a clobber. > > How can I use MemoryDependenceAnalysis (or any other analysis for that > matter) to gather that the instructions > j = N/2 (store i32 %11, i32* %j, align 4) > and > N = N+7 (store i32 %12, i32* %n, align 4) > are the ones that define the parameters "j" and "N" respectively? > > thanks, > Anthony > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
I'm attaching the .bc file. Note that my analysis pass is invoked after "-O1" and that's why the IR I included in the original email is optimized. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: simple_loops_F2_4list.bc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 6384 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090413/779e1ae8/attachment.obj> -------------- next part -------------- On Apr 13, 2009, at 2:21 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:> On Apr 13, 2009, at 9:06 AM, Anthony Danalis wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I have a code similar to the following: > > Hi Anthony, > > Can you please attach the .bc file for this? > > -Chris > >> >> >> program test >> integer i, j, N >> real B(10) >> >> call bar(N, 8) >> N = N+1 >> do i = 1, N >> B(i) = (i+5)/(i+3) >> enddo >> >> j = N/2 >> N = N+7 >> >> call IMPORTANT_F(B, N, i, j) >> >> end program >> >> and I am trying to use dependence analysis on the second and fourth >> actual parameters of IMPORTANT_F(). Since it's Fortran, they are >> really pointers, and the IR of the last block looks like this: >> >> %11 = sdiv i32 %1, 2 ; <i32> [#uses=1] >> store i32 %11, i32* %j, align 4 >> %12 = add i32 %0, 8 ; <i32> [#uses=1] >> store i32 %12, i32* %n, align 4 >> call void (...)* @IMPORTANT_F_([10 x float]* %b, i32* %n, >> i32* %i, i32* %j) nounwind >> ret void >> >> My problem is that if I use getNonLocalPointerDependency() I get the >> instruction "N=N+1" as a Def for the second parameter, "N", and no >> Def for the fourth, "j", (only the call to "bar()" as clobber). >> If I use getDependency() on the call, I get the instruction "N=N+7" >> as >> a clobber. >> >> How can I use MemoryDependenceAnalysis (or any other analysis for >> that >> matter) to gather that the instructions >> j = N/2 (store i32 %11, i32* %j, align 4) >> and >> N = N+7 (store i32 %12, i32* %n, align 4) >> are the ones that define the parameters "j" and "N" respectively? >> >> thanks, >> Anthony >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Anthony Danalis <adanalis at eecs.utk.edu> wrote:> How can I use MemoryDependenceAnalysis (or any other analysis for that > matter) to gather that the instructions > j = N/2 (store i32 %11, i32* %j, align 4) > and > N = N+7 (store i32 %12, i32* %n, align 4) > are the ones that define the parameters "j" and "N" respectively?Try calling MemoryDependenceAnalysis::getDependency? It sounds like you're misusing getNonLocalPointerDependency. -Eli
On Apr 13, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Eli Friedman wrote:> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Anthony Danalis <adanalis at eecs.utk.edu > > wrote: >> How can I use MemoryDependenceAnalysis (or any other analysis for >> that >> matter) to gather that the instructions >> j = N/2 (store i32 %11, i32* %j, align 4) >> and >> N = N+7 (store i32 %12, i32* %n, align 4) >> are the ones that define the parameters "j" and "N" respectively? > > Try calling MemoryDependenceAnalysis::getDependency? It sounds like > you're misusing getNonLocalPointerDependency.But I'm not interested in the dependencies of the alloca instruction, I'm interested in the definition(s) of the particular use of the pointer. Anthony
On Apr 13, 2009, at 9:06 AM, Anthony Danalis wrote:> > My problem is that if I use getNonLocalPointerDependency() I get the > instruction "N=N+1" as a Def for the second parameter, "N", and no > Def for the fourth, "j", (only the call to "bar()" as clobber). > If I use getDependency() on the call, I get the instruction "N=N+7" as > a clobber.The nonlocal in getNonLocalPointerDependency() means that it does not search the current block. --Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090413/aaccfcec/attachment.html>