llvm dev - Aug 2008 - [LLVMdev] LLVMdev Digest, Vol 50, Issue 33

>> 7 for(i=0; i<j && i+j+1<N; i++) {
>>
>> 8 for(i=0; i<j && i<N-j-1; i++) {
>>
>>
>> Line 7 and Line 8 actually have the same expression,
>>     
>
> The expressions are logically similar, but they aren't the same to the
> compiler unless some pass that recognizes these types of polynomial  
> equations and can prove that they are the same is run (I'm not sure if
> such a pass exists in LLVM). For instance, because you use "j -
1" in
> 8, you now have a situation where you have a negative number when j ==  
> 0, etc.
>   
ok, i see.
>   
>> Line 8 just move the "j+1" to the right hand of the
inequation.
>>
>> I just wonder why the two equal inequation result in different cfg,  
>> the
>> additional basicblock, backedge...
>> Surely the two cfg are all correct, but just the additional backedge
>> makes it hard for loop pipeline.
>>
>> Can we improve it?
>>
>>     
>
> For what it's worth, I got the exact same code for both forms when  
> compiling at -O3.
>   
I also tried -O3, but got different ll code, what llvm revision are you 
using ?
> -bw
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVMdev mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
> End of LLVMdev Digest, Vol 50, Issue 33
> ***************************************
>

On Aug 13, 2008, at 1:19 AM, Sheng Zhou wrote:
>>> Line 8 just move the "j+1" to the right hand of the
inequation.
>>>
>>> I just wonder why the two equal inequation result in different cfg,
>>> the
>>> additional basicblock, backedge...
>>> Surely the two cfg are all correct, but just the additional
backedge
>>> makes it hard for loop pipeline.
>>>
>>> Can we improve it?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> For what it's worth, I got the exact same code for both forms when
>> compiling at -O3.
>>
> I also tried -O3, but got different ll code, what llvm revision are  
> you
> using ?
Top of tree.

-bw