search for: i_2s

I have written test.ll as below and ran 'opt' on it as " opt -std-compile-opts test.ll -S -o -" . But the output shows that there is code motion around the barrier intrinsics. test.ll ------- ; ModuleID = 'test.bc' define void @test(i16* %I_0, i16* %I_1, i16* %I_2, i16* %I_3, i16* %O_0) { entry: %T_0 = load volatile i16* %I_0 %T_1 = load volatile i16* %I_1 %T_2 =

Hi Daniel, Sorry for taking so long to respond. I spoke with a colleague more familiar with llvm who thought he could clear up my confusion, but we both came out of the conversation confused. I will try my best to explain the ambiguity. In an DAG, alias queries would be completely unambiguous. Every instruction would only be executed once, and every SSA value really would have a single static

is there any guarantee that the nvptx intrinsic "llvm.nvvm.barrier0" will not be moved around by opt ? In other words, can I expect all the instructions above "llvm.nvvm.barrier0" to remain above it and those below it to remain below, after all the opt passes are run ? If that is not the case, is there a way to define such an intrinsic ? Thanks. -------------- next part

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Jeremy Salwen <jeremysalwen at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hey Daniel, >> >> Thanks again for the help. I'm still a bit confused about the interface to >> the alias analysis. It seems like we are talking about different >> interfaces. >

Hi Hal, Thank you for your email, that makes a lot of sense to me. I am working on some tools to use memory profiling to speculatively replace memory loads and stores with value forwarding in hardware implementations. I'd like to compare the profiled data to static alias analysis, so it would be super useful if there was a way to answer the questions about aliasing across backedges that

> I asked myself the same question. Without mod, how do you ensure that for instance the expression 2*i+255 was not actually 2*i-1 ? I think it is not possible in general, but I believe it is possible in case of affine expressions used as GEP indices. I assume, GEP indices (except indexing into struct) are interpreted as signed integers. It isn't explicitly stated in the LangRef, but

>However, there is one issue I have ignored - possibility of overflow in >the index expression. Suppose, we have such a loop: > for (i8 i = 0; i != 200; ++i) { > A[2 * i + 5] = ... > ... = A[2 * i + 3] > } >If both index expressions are evaluated in 8-bit arithmetic, >then the dependence equation should be solved in modular arithmetic: > 2 * i + 5 == 2 * (i +

I wrote some functions for multiway CANDECOMP, i.e. for least squares fitting of a_{i_1\cdots i_m}\approx\sum_{s=1}^p x^1_{i_1s}x^1_{i_1s}\cdots x^m_{i_ms} with arrays of arbitrary dimension. Reminded me of the good old APL days. I could not find this in the archives, but if it's already there, I would appreciate if someone let me know.

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: >> I'm definitely interested in improving coalescing and it sounds like >> this would fall under that work. Do you have references to papers >> that talk about the various algorithms? > > Some suggestions: > > @InProceedings{Budimlic02, > AUTHOR = {Zoran Budimlic and Keith D. Cooper and Timothy