search for: bodys

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:36 AM, James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk> wrote: > Hi, > > Coremark really isn't a good enough test - have you run the LLVM test suite > with this patch, and what were the performance differences? For the test suite single source benches, the 235 tests improved performance, 2 regressed and 705 were unchanged. That seems very optimistic.

Hi. In my backend I get false code after using StrengthLoopReduction. In the generated code the loop index variable is multiplied by 8 (correct, everything is 64 bit aligned) to get an address offset, and the index variable is incremented by 1*8, which is not correct. It should be incremented by 1 only. The factor 8 appears again. I compared the debug output

Hm, no. I expect byte addresses - everywhere. The compiler should not know that the arch needs word addresses. During lowering LOAD and STORE get explicit conversion operations for the memory address. Even if my arch was byte addressed the code would be false/illegal. Boris > Am 09.06.2020 um 19:36 schrieb Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com>: > > Blindly guessing here,

When I compile two different modules using clang -O -S -emit-llvm I get different .ll files, no surprise. The first looks like double *v; double zap(long n) { double sum = 0; for (long i = 0; i < n; i++) sum += v[i]; return sum; } yielding @v = common global double* null, align 8 ; Function Attrs: nounwind readonly uwtable define double @zap(i64 %n) #0 { entry: %cmp4 =

The IR after LSR is: *** IR Dump After Loop Strength Reduction *** ; Preheader: entry: tail call void @fill_array(i32* getelementptr inbounds ([10 x i32], [10 x i32]* @buffer, i32 0, i32 0)) #2 br label %while.body ; Loop: while.body: ; preds = %while.body, %entry %lsr.iv = phi i32 [ %lsr.iv.next, %while.body ], [ 0, %entry ] %uglygep = getelementptr

On some targets with limited addressing modes, getting that 64-bit relocatable but loop-invariant value into a register requires several instructions. I'd like those several instruction outside the loop, where they belong. Yes, my experience is that something (I assume instcombine) recanonicalizes. Thanks, Preston On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, this may be an obvious logical problem I'm not aware of, which cannot be solved any more efficiently... but maybe it's just a bug or there is potential for optimisation in Dovecot (or Thunderbird?). When searching for multiple terms at once ("any of") with Thunderbird/Dovecot (using FTS Squat indexes), it takes much longer (not

Hi, InstCombine canonicalizes index operands (unless they are into struct types) to pointer size. The comment says: "If we are using a wider index than needed for this platform, shrink it to what we need. If narrower, sign-extend it to what we need. This explicit cast can make subsequent optimizations more obvious.". For our architecture, the canonicalization is a bit

Hello everybody, I have a case of suspected indeterminism and I would like to verify that it is not a known issue before I dig deep into it. It seems to happen during PreVerifier pass ("Preliminary module verification"). The little I understand/assume about it, a verifier pass is not supposed to change the code (or is it?) but in debug stream I see the following: Common predecessor:

Hi, I'm trying to get the following loop to vectorize (simple reduction): unsigned int sum2(unsigned int *a, int len){ unsigned int s = 0; for (int i = 0; i < len; i += 4) s += *a++; return s; } The loop fails to vectorize because SCEV could not compute the loop exit count. It appears SCEV cannot handle the non-unit increment of the loop counter. Is this a known limitation of

I'm trying to make the IR "better", in a machine-independent fashion, without having to do any lowering. I've written code that rewrites GEPs as simple adds and multiplies, which helps a lot, but there's still some sort of re-canonicalization that's getting in my way. Is there perhaps a way to suppress it? Thanks, Preston On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Mehdi Amini

Hello. Mikhail, with the more recent version of the LoopVectorize.cpp code (retrieved at the beginning of July 2016) I ran the following piece of C code: void foo(long *A, long *B, long *C, long N) { for (long i = 0; i < N; ++i) { C[i] = A[i] + B[i]; } } The vectorized LLVM program I obtain contains 2 vector.body blocks - one named

I am interested in accessing the body of the email in text format using IMAP to receive emails. So far I have tried the following #body = imap.fetch(message_id, "BODY[TEXT]") #body = imap.fetch(message_id, ["BODY[]"])[0].attr[''BODY[]''] But both of the above give me body text + the headers including Content-Type etc. How can I access

Here is original C code: void topup(int a[], unsigned long i) { for (; i < 16; i++) { a[i] = 1; } } Here is the IR before the pass where I expect SCEV to return trip-count value ; Function Attrs: nofree norecurse nounwind uwtable writeonly define dso_local void @topup(i32* nocapture %a, i64 %i) local_unnamed_addr #0 { entry: %cmp3 = icmp ult i64 %i, 16 br i1

I suppose your view is reasonable, and perhaps common. My own "taste" has always preferred machine-independent code that is as simple as possible, so GEPs reduced to nothing more than an add, etc, i.e., quite risc-like. Then optimize it to reduce the total number of operations (as best we can), then raise the level during instruction selection, taking advantage of available instructions.

Hi, Scalar evolution seems to be wrapping around the trip count in the following loop. void add (int *restrict a, int *restrict b, int *restrict c) { char i; for (i = 0; i < 255; i++) a[i] = b[i] + c[i]; } When I run scalar evolution on the bit code, I get a backedge-taken count which is obviously wrong. $> cat loop.ll ; Function Attrs: nounwind define void @add(i32* noalias

Is my understanding correct that the body() function currently can't return a function's body intact, in order, and as characters ready for editing? My testing and reading of body()'s help indicate that it can not. Here's what I'm seeing. Consider pasting 1+ and a function containing x^2 together to get 1+x^2 As you can see below, body() reports three

Hi Sergei, "addRuntimeCheck" inserts code that checks that two or more arrays are disjoint. I looked at the code and it looks fine. We generate PHIs in the order that they appear in a vector. The values are inserted in 'canVectorizeMemory', which also looks fine. Please let me know if you think I missed something. Thanks, Nadav On Jan 29, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Sergei Larin

Nadav, As I peel this onion, it looks like you might know something about InnerLoopVectorizer::addRuntimeCheck. What does it do, and can it be causing the below described issue? Could resuming somehow (indeterministically) switch the order of PHIs in the original code? Thanks a lot. Sergei. --- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

Hello, If I run clang on the following code: void func(unsigned n) { > for (unsigned long x = 1; x < n; ++x) > dummy(x); > } I get the following llvm ir: define void @func(i32 %n) { > entry: > %conv = zext i32 %n to i64 > %cmp5 = icmp ugt i32 %n, 1 > br i1 %cmp5, label %for.body, label %for.cond.cleanup > for.cond.cleanup: