search for: 158601

...the loop preheader. The invariant would only go away if no one else used the value, which in your case would make sense (e.g. if the loop test were rewritten in terms of %b, you probably wouldn't need the invariant any more). http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121210/158601.html But really, the only thing likely to make it onto trunk for this bug is the SCEV fix mentioned above. More details can be discussed in PR15205. -Andy

...preheader. The invariant would only go away if no one else used the value, which in your case would make sense (e.g. if the loop test were rewritten in terms of %b, you probably wouldn't need the invariant any more). > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121210/158601.html > I read the post you suggested. If I understood correctly the idea I like it very much. Just to better understand, when you say <<< It would be generally useful to model an intrinsic that is free and not a strong use but does have control dependence. That's what I call a m...

> Thanks for the details. Please add them to a bug report. I will do this. > InstCombine is certainly interfering with our ability to analyze the loop. I think the problem is that ScalarEvolution cannot reason about signed division. This is a general problem independent of your target. At the moment I'm not sure if we can teach ScalarEvolution to reason about this, or if we can defer

...nvariant would only go away if no one else used the > value, which in your case would make sense (e.g. if the loop test > were rewritten in terms of %b, you probably wouldn't need the > invariant any more). > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121210/158601.html If you're in favor of this approach, can I pop out of the woodwork and say that it appears that we have a reasonably-large group of contributors in favor of an invariant intrinsic and we should move forward on that basis? Thanks again, Hal > > But really, the only thing likely to...

...go away if no one else used the >> value, which in your case would make sense (e.g. if the loop test >> were rewritten in terms of %b, you probably wouldn't need the >> invariant any more). >> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121210/158601.html > > If you're in favor of this approach, can I pop out of the woodwork and say that it appears that we have a reasonably-large group of contributors in favor of an invariant intrinsic and we should move forward on that basis? A general llvm.invariant does seem like a convenient thi...

...nvariant would only go away if no one else used the > value, which in your case would make sense (e.g. if the loop test > were rewritten in terms of %b, you probably wouldn't need the > invariant any more). > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121210/158601.html > > If you're in favor of this approach, can I pop out of the woodwork > and say that it appears that we have a reasonably-large group of > contributors in favor of an invariant intrinsic and we should move > forward on that basis? > > > A general llvm.invariant...

...go away if no one else used the >> value, which in your case would make sense (e.g. if the loop test >> were rewritten in terms of %b, you probably wouldn't need the >> invariant any more). >> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121210/158601.html >> >> If you're in favor of this approach, can I pop out of the woodwork >> and say that it appears that we have a reasonably-large group of >> contributors in favor of an invariant intrinsic and we should move >> forward on that basis? >> >> &g...

...t; the > >> value, which in your case would make sense (e.g. if the loop test > >> were rewritten in terms of %b, you probably wouldn't need the > >> invariant any more). > >> > >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121210/158601.html > >> > >> If you're in favor of this approach, can I pop out of the woodwork > >> and say that it appears that we have a reasonably-large group of > >> contributors in favor of an invariant intrinsic and we should move > >> forward on that basi...

...ant would only go away if no one else used > the > value, which in your case would make sense (e.g. if the loop test > were rewritten in terms of %b, you probably wouldn't need the > invariant any more). > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121210/158601.html > > If you're in favor of this approach, can I pop out of the woodwork > and say that it appears that we have a reasonably-large group of > contributors in favor of an invariant intrinsic and we should move > forward on that basis? > > > A general llvm.invariant...

...f no one else used >> the >> value, which in your case would make sense (e.g. if the loop test >> were rewritten in terms of %b, you probably wouldn't need the >> invariant any more). >> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121210/158601.html >> >> If you're in favor of this approach, can I pop out of the woodwork >> and say that it appears that we have a reasonably-large group of >> contributors in favor of an invariant intrinsic and we should move >> forward on that basis? >> >> &g...

...>> value, which in your case would make sense (e.g. if the loop test >>>> were rewritten in terms of %b, you probably wouldn't need the >>>> invariant any more). >>>> >>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121210/158601.html >>>> >>>> If you're in favor of this approach, can I pop out of the woodwork >>>> and say that it appears that we have a reasonably-large group of >>>> contributors in favor of an invariant intrinsic and we should move >>>> forwa...

...ant would only go away if no one else used > the > value, which in your case would make sense (e.g. if the loop test > were rewritten in terms of %b, you probably wouldn't need the > invariant any more). > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121210/158601.html > > If you're in favor of this approach, can I pop out of the woodwork > and say that it appears that we have a reasonably-large group of > contributors in favor of an invariant intrinsic and we should move > forward on that basis? > > > A general llvm.invariant...