search for: getloopid

Hi, The getLoopID method was missing from LLVM 3.3's LoopInfo.h. But the latest documentation has it ... probably the documentation is lagging behind in the update? Gai

Hi, The getLoopID method was missing from LLVM 3.3's LoopInfo.h. But the latest documentation has it ... probably the documentation is lagging behind in the update? Gai

...ve encountered some issues with the preservation of the location of llvm.loop metadata (containing optimisation hints), and would appreciate some feedback on the issue. The IR language description states that llvm.loop metadata is attached to terminator of a loop latch block, and accordingly Loop::getLoopID() searches for it in all loop latches (and only successfully finds it if all latches reference the same metadata) However, transforms which modify the CFG, for example using SplitCriticalEdge(), generally don't make any attempt to preserve this property. Some transforms dealing specifically wi...

...ent patch for clang. Maybe someone wants to > > play with > > it or has ideas on how to refine the llvm.mem metadata generation. > > + } else if (I->mayReadOrWriteMemory()) > + I->setMetadata("llvm.mem.parallel_loop_access", > + L.GetLoopID(I->getContext())); > + } > > Here we want to not add metadata to load/store > instructions which originate from unsafe allocas > like discussed. > > I wonder if there's an easier way to find this out than to follow > the pointer argument until a global or a functio...

...wrote: > Attached is my most recent patch for clang. Maybe someone wants to play with > it or has ideas on how to refine the llvm.mem metadata generation. + } else if (I->mayReadOrWriteMemory()) + I->setMetadata("llvm.mem.parallel_loop_access", + L.GetLoopID(I->getContext())); + } Here we want to not add metadata to load/store instructions which originate from unsafe allocas like discussed. I wonder if there's an easier way to find this out than to follow the pointer argument until a global or a function argument is found? Maybe that can be d...

Hi, On 2013-03-03, at 2:58 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > > I agree; we should only annotate accesses that some from language-level array/pointer(/reference) accesses. We should then rely on other passes to clean up (or not) the remainder. > > I think that the best way to handle local arrays is to issue a warning when they occur inside an annotated loop that the local array will probably