search for: getnowrapflags

Displaying 11 results from an estimated 11 matches for "getnowrapflags".

Did you mean: setnowrapflags
2013 Nov 16
0
[LLVMdev] SCEV getMulExpr() not propagating Wrap flags
...e NUW and NSW flags if both the > // outer mul and the inner addrec are guaranteed to have no overflow. > // > // No self-wrap cannot be guaranteed after changing the step size, but > // will be inferred if either NUW or NSW is true. > Flags = AddRec->getNoWrapFlags(clearFlags(Flags, SCEV::FlagNW)); > const SCEV *NewRec = getAddRecExpr(NewOps, AddRecLoop, Flags); > > // If all of the other operands were loop invariant, we are done. > if (Ops.size() == 1) return NewRec; > > I understand that you can't assume it won'...
2013 Nov 13
2
[LLVMdev] SCEV getMulExpr() not propagating Wrap flags
...new addrec. Propagate the NUW and NSW flags if both the // outer mul and the inner addrec are guaranteed to have no overflow. // // No self-wrap cannot be guaranteed after changing the step size, but // will be inferred if either NUW or NSW is true. Flags = AddRec->getNoWrapFlags(clearFlags(Flags, SCEV::FlagNW)); const SCEV *NewRec = getAddRecExpr(NewOps, AddRecLoop, Flags); // If all of the other operands were loop invariant, we are done. if (Ops.size() == 1) return NewRec; I understand that you can't assume it won't wrap around with the new str...
2013 Nov 16
2
[LLVMdev] SCEV getMulExpr() not propagating Wrap flags
On 16 November 2013 06:56, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > - getMulExpr constructs a new AddRec with NSW: > > Flags = AddRec->getNoWrapFlags(clearFlags(Flags, SCEV::FlagNW)); > const SCEV *NewRec = getAddRecExpr(NewOps, AddRecLoop, Flags); > Hi Andrew, Thanks for looking at this. Clearing the flags here makes sense, but it's being too conservative. I'm thinking I'll need something like propagateSafeFlags(...)...
2015 Jun 11
2
[LLVMdev] Question about NoWrap flag for SCEVAddRecExpr
> On Jun 11, 2015, at 12:48 AM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com <mailto:anemet at apple.com>> wrote: >> >>> On Jun 10, 2015, at 11:44 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Base is treated as unsigned so
2013 Nov 16
0
[LLVMdev] SCEV getMulExpr() not propagating Wrap flags
> On Nov 16, 2013, at 4:11 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > >> On 16 November 2013 06:56, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: >> - getMulExpr constructs a new AddRec with NSW: >> >> Flags = AddRec->getNoWrapFlags(clearFlags(Flags, SCEV::FlagNW)); >> const SCEV *NewRec = getAddRecExpr(NewOps, AddRecLoop, Flags); > > Hi Andrew, > > Thanks for looking at this. > > Clearing the flags here makes sense, but it's being too conservative. I'm thinking I'll need something...
2018 Feb 08
2
[SCEV] Inconsistent SCEV formation for zext
...ssion with the addrec on the outside. return getAddRecExpr( getExtendAddRecStart<SCEVZeroExtendExpr>(AR, Ty, this, Depth + 1), getSignExtendExpr(Step, Ty, Depth + 1), L, AR->getNoWrapFlags()); } I believe it is wrong for ScalarEvolution to use a simplified SCEV for internal analysis and return a non-simplified SCEV to the client. Thanks, Pankaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/at...
2015 Jan 15
4
[LLVMdev] confusion w.r.t. scalar evolution and nuw
...arned to handle non-constant ranges) in ScalarEvolution::getUnsignedRange, the following code could fire: if (const SCEVAddRecExpr *AddRec = dyn_cast<SCEVAddRecExpr>(S)) { // If there's no unsigned wrap, the value will never be less than its // initial value. if (AddRec->getNoWrapFlags(SCEV::FlagNUW)) if (const SCEVConstant *C = dyn_cast<SCEVConstant>(AddRec->getStart())) if (!C->getValue()->isZero()) ConservativeResult = ConservativeResult.intersectWith( ConstantRange(C->getValue()->getValue(), APInt(BitWidth...
2016 Apr 23
2
[IndVarSimplify] Narrow IV's are not eliminated resulting in inefficient code
...IOps); > + AddRecOps[0] = getAddExpr(LIOps, Flags); > > // Build the new addrec. Propagate the NUW and NSW flags if both the > // outer add and the inner addrec are guaranteed to have no > overflow. > // Always propagate NW. > Flags = AddRec->getNoWrapFlags(setFlags(Flags, SCEV::FlagNW)); > const SCEV *NewRec = getAddRecExpr(AddRecOps, AddRecLoop, Flags); > > // If all of the other operands were loop invariant, we are done. > if (Ops.size() == 1) return NewRec; > > Thanks! > -- Sanjoy > -------------- next...
2018 Feb 10
0
[SCEV] Inconsistent SCEV formation for zext
...return getAddRecExpr( > > getExtendAddRecStart<SCEVZeroExtendExpr>(AR, Ty, this, > > Depth + 1), > > getSignExtendExpr(Step, Ty, Depth + 1), L, > > AR->getNoWrapFlags()); > > } > > > > I believe it is wrong for ScalarEvolution to use a simplified SCEV for > internal analysis and return a non-simplified SCEV to the client. > > > > Thanks, > > Pankaj > > > >
2016 Apr 20
2
[IndVarSimplify] Narrow IV's are not eliminated resulting in inefficient code
​Hi, Would you be able to kindly check and assist with the IndVarSimplify / SCEV problem I got in the latest LLVM, please? Sometimes IndVarSimplify may not eliminate narrow IV's when there actually exists such a possibility. This may affect other LLVM passes and result in inefficient code. The reproducing test 'indvar_test.cpp' is attached. The problem is with the second
2018 Feb 11
2
[SCEV] Inconsistent SCEV formation for zext
...return getAddRecExpr( > > getExtendAddRecStart<SCEVZeroExtendExpr>(AR, Ty, this, > > Depth + 1), > > getSignExtendExpr(Step, Ty, Depth + 1), L, > > AR->getNoWrapFlags()); > > } > > > > I believe it is wrong for ScalarEvolution to use a simplified SCEV for > internal analysis and return a non-simplified SCEV to the client. > > > > Thanks, > > Pankaj > > > >