search for: inductiverangecheckelimin

Hi, extractRangeChecksFromBranch uses BranchProbabilityInfo to decide whether its worth trying the InductiveRangeCheckElimination transformation. For the following example: void split() { for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { if (i < 99) do_something() else do_something_else() } } But the reported BPI is reported as 50/50 to whether do_something will be called, but we can see with our human eyes...

Adding Maxim On Apr 9, 2018, at 10:06 AM, Sam Parker via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: Hi, extractRangeChecksFromBranch uses BranchProbabilityInfo to decide whether its worth trying the InductiveRangeCheckElimination transformation. For the following example: void split() { for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { if (i < 99) do_something() else do_something_else() } } But the reported BPI is reported as 50/50 to whether do_something will be called, but we can see with our human eyes...

Hi, Which optimization passes use profile information? http://llvm.org/docs/Passes.html seems to suggest only block placement uses it, is that correct? Emma. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160715/46cc3ccc/attachment.html>

...gt; unassignedbugs at nondot.org NEW --- [LoopVersioning] lit test hits invalid > domtree assert w/ XDEBUG <https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27487> > 14:31:56 > 27486 <https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27486> librarie Scalar O > unassignedbugs at nondot.org NEW --- [InductiveRangeCheckElimination] > invalidates domtree and hits asserts w/ XDEBUG > <https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27486> 14:29:00 > 27485 <https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27485> librarie Backend: > unassignedbugs at nondot.org NEW --- [X86] Codegen/X86/selectiondag-cse.ll > hits asse...

Yeah, they are just triggered by lit check tests. I’ll file some bugs today, though it looks like Quentin may have already filed bugs for some of these. -- Geoff Berry Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org] Sent: Friday,

...>7 will do not have the "add", > "icmp" and "br" instructions because these BBs can be merged together. > > How can I achieve this? Thanks. > > One - rather heavy weight - way to do this would be to add the -irce pass > after the loop unroll step. InductiveRangeCheckElimination will introduce > a post loop so as to eliminate the range checks in the inner loop. This > might not be the ideal transformation for this code, but it might get you > closer to what you want. > > A couple of caveats: > - 3.5 isn't recent enough to have a stable IRCE. Do...

Hi, Florian has been working on loop peeling to remove control flow from loop bodies in https://reviews.llvm.org/D43876. For larger constants or other loop invariant bounds, such like: for (unsigned i = 0; i; i < 1000; ++i) { if (i < M) ... something else ... something else } The loop could be split into two, like so: Min = min(1000, M); unsigned i; for (i = 0; i; i < Min;

Hi, I want to use loop unrolling pass, however, I find that loop unrolling will introduces conditional branch at end of every "unrolled" part. For example, consider the following code *void foo( int n, int array_x[])* *{* * for (int i=0; i < n; i++)* * array_x[i] = i; * *}* Then I use this command "opt-3.5 try.bc -mem2reg -loops -loop-simplify -loop-rotate -lcssa

...>> "icmp" and "br" instructions because these BBs can be merged together. >>> >>> How can I achieve this? Thanks. >>> >>> One - rather heavy weight - way to do this would be to add the -irce >>> pass after the loop unroll step. InductiveRangeCheckElimination will >>> introduce a post loop so as to eliminate the range checks in the inner >>> loop. This might not be the ideal transformation for this code, but it >>> might get you closer to what you want. >>> >>> A couple of caveats: >>> - 3.5 is...

Hi, This is Ariel from the Rust team again. I am having another pass ordering issue. Looking at the pass manager at https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/7034870f30320d6fbc74effff539d946018cd00a/lib/Transforms/IPO/PassManagerBuilder.cpp (the early SimplifyCfg now doesn't sink stores anymore! I can't wait until I can get to use that in rustc!) I find that the loop optimization group

For the example code below, int L = M + 10; for (k = 1 ; k <=L; k++) { dummy(); if (k < M) dummy2(); } , we can split the loop into two parts like : for (k = 1 ; k != M; k++) { dummy(); dummy2(); } for (; k <=L; k++) { dummy(); } By splitting the loop, we can remove the conditional block in the loop and indirectly increase vectorization

John Criswell wrote: > If you're interested in SAFECode, the first step is to get SAFECode > working with a newer version of LLVM. A Master's student did some > work on this last summer with LLVM 3.7 but didn't finish. It would > now need to be updated to LLVM 3.8 (though I suppose a completed LLVM > 3.7 port would be fine with me). > > After that, there are

...ause these BBs can be merged >>>>> together. >>>>> >>>>> How can I achieve this? Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> One - rather heavy weight - way to do this would be to add the -irce >>>>> pass after the loop unroll step. InductiveRangeCheckElimination will >>>>> introduce a post loop so as to eliminate the range checks in the inner >>>>> loop. This might not be the ideal transformation for this code, but it >>>>> might get you closer to what you want. >>>>> >>>>> A...

.../NIKHILREDDY/WORK/LLVM_OBJ/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG' make[3]: Entering directory '/home/NIKHILREDDY/WORK/LLVM_OBJ/lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter' llvm[2]: Compiling TargetTransformInfo.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[3]: Compiling ARMException.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[3]: Compiling InductiveRangeCheckElimination.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[2]: Compiling Trace.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[3]: Compiling AddressPool.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[2]: Compiling TypeBasedAliasAnalysis.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[3]: Compiling AsmPrinter.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[3]: Compili...