search for: inc10

....ph: ; preds = %for.body.4.lr.ph.preheader, %for.cond.cleanup.3 %lsr.iv5 = phi i32* [ %Src, %for.body.4.lr.ph.preheader ], [ %2, %for.cond.cleanup.3 ] %lsr.iv1 = phi i32* [ %Dst, %for.body.4.lr.ph.preheader ], [ %1, %for.cond.cleanup.3 ] %Outer.026 = phi i32 [ %inc10, %for.cond.cleanup.3 ], [ 0, %for.body.4.lr.ph.preheader ] %lsr.iv56 = bitcast i32* %lsr.iv5 to i1* %lsr.iv12 = bitcast i32* %lsr.iv1 to i1* br label %for.body.4 for.cond.cleanup.loopexit: ; preds = %for.cond.cleanup.3 br label %for.cond.cleanup for.cond.cleanup:...

...rrayidx2, align 1 %cmp = icmp eq i8 %0, %1 br i1 %cmp, label %if.end, label %if.then if.then: ; preds = %entry %cmp7 = icmp ugt i8 %0, %1 br label %return if.end: ; preds = %entry %inc = add i32 %i1, 1 %inc10 = add i32 %i2, 1 %idxprom11 = zext i32 %inc to i64 %arrayidx12 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %block, i64 %idxprom11 %2 = load i8, i8* %arrayidx12, align 1 %idxprom13 = zext i32 %inc10 to i64 %arrayidx14 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %block, i64 %idxprom13 %3 = load i8, i8* %arrayi...

...r.body.4.lr.ph.preheader, %for.cond.cleanup.3 > > %lsr.iv5 = phi i32* [ %Src, %for.body.4.lr.ph.preheader ], [ %2, > > %for.cond.cleanup.3 ] > > %lsr.iv1 = phi i32* [ %Dst, %for.body.4.lr.ph.preheader ], [ %1, > > %for.cond.cleanup.3 ] > > %Outer.026 = phi i32 [ %inc10, %for.cond.cleanup.3 ], [ 0, > > %for.body.4.lr.ph.preheader ] > > %lsr.iv56 = bitcast i32* %lsr.iv5 to i1* > > %lsr.iv12 = bitcast i32* %lsr.iv1 to i1* > > br label %for.body.4 > > > > for.cond.cleanup.loopexit: ; preds = > %for.c...

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > To: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 1:58:02 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Improving loop vectorizer support for loops > with a volatile iteration variable > ----- Original Message ----- > >

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Jake VanAdrighem <jvanadrighem at gmail.com> wrote: > Do you have some specific performance measurements? Averaging 4 runs of 10000 iterations each of Coremark on my X86_64 desktop showed: -O2 performance: +2.9% faster with the L.E.V. pass -Os size: 1.5% smaller with the L.E.V. pass In the case of Coremark, the benefit comes mainly from the matrix

...1600, !dbg !36 br i1 %cmp2, label %for.body.4, label > %for.cond.cleanup.3, !dbg !39 for.cond.cleanup.3: ; preds = > %for.cond.1 tail call void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata i32* %i, i64 0, > metadata !14, metadata !25), !dbg !29 %i.0.i.0.17 = load volatile > i32, i32* %i, align 4, !dbg !40 %inc10 = add nsw i32 %i.0.i.0.17, 1, > !dbg !40 tail call void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata i32 %inc10, i64 0, > metadata !14, metadata !25), !dbg !29 store volatile i32 %inc10, > i32* %i, align 4, !dbg !40 br label %for.cond, !dbg !41 for.body.4: > ; preds = %for.cond.1 %idxprom = sext i32 %j.0 t...

Hi Steve it seems the general consensus is that the patch feels like a work-around for a problem with LSR (and possibly other loop transformations) that introduces redundant instructions. It is probably best to file a bug and a few of your test cases. Thanks Gerolf > On Sep 10, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Steve King via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015

> On Mar 2, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com <mailto:dnovillo at google.com>> wrote: > > I've created a few bugzilla issues with details of some of the things I'll be looking into. I'm not yet done wordsmithing the overall design document.