search for: addexprs

Hi Nick, Thanks for looking into it. I have tried that as well but it didn't worked. "AddExpr->getOperand(0))" node is: " (4 * (sext i32 {2,+,2}<%for.body4> to i64))<nsw>" When I cast this to "SCEVAddRecExpr" it returns NULL. Regards, Ashutosh -----Original Message----- From: Nick Lewycky [mailto:nicholas at mxc.ca] Sent: Thursday, March 19,

Yes, I can get "SCEVAddRecExpr" from operands of "(sext i32 {2,+,2}<%for.body4> to i64)". So whenever SCEV cast to "SCEVAddRecExpr" fails, we have drill down for such patterns ? Is that the right way ? Regards, Ashutosh -----Original Message----- From: Nick Lewycky [mailto:nicholas at mxc.ca] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 1:02 PM To: Nema, Ashutosh Cc:

Hi, I'm trying to cast one of the SCEV node to "SCEVAddRecExpr". Every time cast return NULL, and I'm unable to do this. SCEV Node: ((4 * (sext i32 {2,+,2}<%for.body4> to i64))<nsw> + %var)<nsw> Casting: const SCEVAddRecExpr *AR = dyn_cast<SCEVAddRecExpr>(SCEVNode); 'var' is of type float pointer (float*). Without 'sext' it works, but

Hello, I'm studying how the SCEV analyzis works and how to use it and I could not create an example where the SCEV analyzis identifies an expression as "SCEVAddRecExpr". Aren't the expressions below the kind of pattern that should be represented as a "AddRecExpr" ? SCEV: (1 + (2 * %3) or SCEV: (%1 + (2 * %3) or SCEV: (%1 + (%2 * %3) In my experiments they are

I have a bit of a riddle: In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19904 I'm trying to spell the following assembly: .palign 2, 0x90 jmp +0x9 nopw 512(%rax,%rax,1) // rest of the code I try the following snippet to accomplish this: OutStreamer->EmitLabel(CurSled); OutStreamer->EmitCodeAlignment(4); auto Target = OutContext.createLinkerPrivateTempSymbol(); // Use a two-byte `jmp`.

Hi Preston, On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com> wrote: > > which produces > > %arrayidx24 = getelementptr inbounds [100 x [100 x i64]]* %A, i64 > %arrayidx21.sum, i64 %add1411, i64 %add > store i64 0, i64* %arrayidx24, align 8 > {{{(5 + ((3 + %n) * %n)),+,(2 * %n * %n)}<%for.cond1.preheader>,+,(4 *

...globals-aa by default. -1% 7. r248638: [SCEV] Reapply 'Teach isLoopBackedgeGuardedByCond to exploit trip counts'. +2% 8. r249802: [SCEV] Call `StrengthenNoWrapFlags` after `GroupByComplexity`; NFCI. +4% 9. r250157: [GlobalsAA] Turn GlobalsAA on again by default. +1% 10. r251049: [SCEV] Mark AddExprs as nsw or nuw if legal. +23% 11. No data 12. r259252: AttributeSetImpl: Summarize existing function attributes in a bitset. -1% r259256: Add LoopSimplifyCFG pass. -2% 13. r262250: Enable LoopLoadElimination by default. +3% 14. r262839: Revert "Enable LoopLoadElimination by default". -...

I''m trying to use Canoo WebTest (based on HtmlUnit) to test my webapp after integrating scriptaculous. While my test passed, I get a nice long exception message which barely makes any sense (see below). I found I could get rid of this message by commenting out line 114 of effects.js: 114 this.timeout = setTimeout(this.loop.bind(this), 10); Any idea of what might be causing

Sorry typo in test case, Please ignore previous mail. Consider below case: for (j=1; j < itr; j++) { - - - - for (i=1; i < itr; i++) { { temp= var[i << 1]; - - - - - } } In the above example, we are unable to get "SCEVAddRecExpr" for "var[i << 1]" Its "SCEVAddRecExpr" is computable in *Outer Loop* I

...7. r248638: [SCEV] Reapply 'Teach isLoopBackedgeGuardedByCond to exploit trip counts'. +2% >> 8. r249802: [SCEV] Call `StrengthenNoWrapFlags` after `GroupByComplexity`; NFCI. +4% >> 9. r250157: [GlobalsAA] Turn GlobalsAA on again by default. +1% >> 10. r251049: [SCEV] Mark AddExprs as nsw or nuw if legal. +23% >> 11. No data >> 12. r259252: AttributeSetImpl: Summarize existing function attributes in a bitset. -1% >> r259256: Add LoopSimplifyCFG pass. -2% >> 13. r262250: Enable LoopLoadElimination by default. +3% >> 14. r262839: Revert "E...

...SCEV] Reapply 'Teach isLoopBackedgeGuardedByCond to exploit > trip counts'. +2% > > 8. r249802: [SCEV] Call `StrengthenNoWrapFlags` after > `GroupByComplexity`; NFCI. +4% > > 9. r250157: [GlobalsAA] Turn GlobalsAA on again by default. +1% > > 10. r251049: [SCEV] Mark AddExprs as nsw or nuw if legal. +23% > > 11. No data > > 12. r259252: AttributeSetImpl: Summarize existing function attributes in > a bitset. -1% > > r259256: Add LoopSimplifyCFG pass. -2% > > 13. r262250: Enable LoopLoadElimination by default. +3% > > 14. r262839: Rever...

Is there any chance of replacing/extending the GEP instruction? As noted in the GEP FAQ, GEPs don't support variable-length arrays; when the front ends have to support VLAs, they linearize the subscript expressions, throwing away information. The FAQ suggests that folks interested in writing an analysis that understands array indices (I'm thinking of dependence analysis) should be

Hello, I Have a question related to the RT check on pointers during Loop Access Analysis pass. There is a testcase with loop code that consist of 4 different memory operations referring two global objects of different address spaces. One from global constant (address space 4, addr_size = 64) and the other from local, LDS (address space 3, addr_size= 32). (Details of various address spaces

Dear Mr. Northover, Thank you for the quick reply. You are correct about the address-mode operands :) . I guess an important detail left out was that the basic block (call it A) that wants to calculate the address of the target stationary trampoline basic block (call it B) will be moved around in memory during run-time. Our earlier solution, before the feature was implemented to move around (A)

Hi Stefanos, Attached the testcase. I tried to reduce it further, but the problem goes away when I remove the instructions further. There is a nested loop and the fault occurs while processing the inner loop (for.body) To reproduce the crash: opt -O3 testcase.ll -o out.ll > `groupChecks()` will only try to group pointers that are on the same alias set. If that’s true, the RT check

----- Original Message ----- > > On Oct 31, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > > Andy, et al., > > > > If I start with C code like this: > > > > void foo(long k, int * restrict a, int * restrict b, int * restrict > > c) { > > if (k > 0) { > > for (int i = 0; i < 2047; i++) { > > a[i] =