search for: innerloops

Hi all, How Can I get the Loops around an Instruction? I know I can get the basic block of an instruction using inst.getParent() which returns a BasicBlock*. Now I want to use the getLoopFor(BasicBlock) method of the class LoopInfo. But I dont know how to get the LoopInfo. BasicBlock* bb = inst.getParent(); (... what should I add here?) Loop* innerloop = LI -> getLoopFor(bb): Thanks.

Hi, I am trying to compile a single module (dgemm.c) using clang and generate dgemm.ll. Command: clang -emit-llvm dgemm.c -S -o dgemm.ll Some of the functions are declared as static and clang ignores these functions: One of the functions is: static void innerloop(double a, const double* b, double* c, double beta) { *b = a*beta; return; } Is there any way to make clang generate llvm code

On 2/28/11 4:43 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > > On Feb 28, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Naznin Fauzia wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> How Can I get the Loops around an Instruction? >> >> I know I can get the basic block of an instruction using >> inst.getParent() which returns a BasicBlock*. Now I want to use the >> getLoopFor(BasicBlock) method of the class

On Feb 28, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Naznin Fauzia wrote: > Hi all, > > How Can I get the Loops around an Instruction? > > I know I can get the basic block of an instruction using inst.getParent() which returns a BasicBlock*. Now I want to use the getLoopFor(BasicBlock) method of the class LoopInfo. > But I dont know how to get the LoopInfo. > > BasicBlock* bb =

Hi, I am trying to get a small loop to *not vectorize* for cases where it doesn't make sense. For instance, this loop: void foo(int a[4][8], int n) { int b[4][8]; for(int i = 0; i < 4; i++) { for(int j = 0; j < n; j++) { a[i][j] = b[i][j]; } } } * Has maximum of 8ints copy. LLVM tries to use Memcpy for the inner loop. It is not helpful to perform

Hi, Sorry for not being specific. I just wanted to know if there is any way at all to force clang to generate intermediate code for static functions when they are not being called anywhere inside the current module. Other compilers seem to generate intermediate code (lcc, for instance). Thanks for your reply..Olivier. Sincerely Arvind On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Olivier Meurant

Thanks Devang and John. My pass is actually a loop pass, not a function pass. So, I couldnt override the getAnalysisUsage. I am in a loop pass, I know the outermost loop. Now How can I get the loopInfo from here? I couldn't find helpful methods in the LoopInfo class documents. On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 5:52 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 2/28/11 4:43 PM,

Hi Arvind, you need to use it effectively : static int add(int a, int b) { return a+b; } int use() { return add(4,5); } ==> ; ModuleID = '<stdin>' target datalayout = "e-p:32:32:32-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:32:64-f32:32:32-f64:32:64-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-f80:32:32" target triple = "i386-pc-linux-gnu" define i32 @use()

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Naznin Fauzia <laboni14 at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Devang and John. My pass is actually a loop pass, not a function > pass. So, I couldnt override the getAnalysisUsage. > A LoopPass is no different from a FunctionPass here. You can use getAnalysisUsage and getAnalysis in a LoopPass. > I am in a loop pass, I know the outermost loop. Now How

Ah ok. Sorry. :) I think that argument "-femit-all-decls" will help you. Olivier. On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Arvind Sudarsanam < arvind.sudarsanam at aggiemail.usu.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry for not being specific. I just wanted to know if there is any > way at all to force clang to generate intermediate code for static > functions when they are not being

On 7/1/20 12:40 AM, Michael Kruse via llvm-dev wrote: > To illustrate some difficulties with FileCheck, lets make a > non-semantic change in LLVM: > >     --- a/llvm/lib/Analysis/VectorUtils.cpp >     +++ b/llvm/lib/Analysis/VectorUtils.cpp >     @@ -642,8 +642,8 @@ MDNode *llvm::uniteAccessGroups(MDNode > *AccGroups1, MDNode *AccGroups2) { >          return AccGroups1;

Hi Sriram, Thanks for performing this analysis. The problem here, both for memcpy and the vectorizer, is that we can’t predict the size of “n”, even though the only use of ’n’ is for the loop bound for the alloca [4 x [8 x i32]]. If you change the unroll condition to TC >= 0 then you will disable loop unrolling for all loops because getSmallConstantTripCount returns an unsigned number. You

Am Mi., 24. Juni 2020 um 10:12 Uhr schrieb David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>: > > As mentioned in the Differential, generating the tests automatically > > will lose information about what actually is intended to be tested, > > Agreed - and I didn't mean to suggest tests should be automatically > generated. I work pretty hard in code reviews to encourage tests to

The linux builds are not using SSE right now, but the vector data is 16-byte aligned on all platforms. So if you port this SSE code to another platform (Linux, Altivec, NEON), you could contribute it back to Bullet? The most interesting SSE part is the innerloop of the constraint solver: http://tinyurl.com/ydoapct Some developers replaced some linear algebra functions (in Bullet/LinearMath) with

Hi Nadav, Thanks for the response. I forgot to mention that there is an upper limit of 16 for the Trip Count check, TinyTripCountVectorThreshold = 16; if (TC > 0u && TC < TinyTripCountVectorThreshold). So right now, any loop with Trip Count as 0, or with value >=16, LV with unroll. With the change to the lower bound, it will also include the loop with 0 trip count. SCEV returns 0

...erently designed to contain a *single* basic block. This poses an issue today, as innermost loops may benefit from retaining some internal branches when vectorized. For outerloops this clearly cannot hold - the resulting vectorized loop will contain more than a single basic block as it will contain innerloops. 2. There is inherently a single vectorization candidate with a single dimension of optimization - namely the Vectorization Factor and/or Unrolling Factor of the innermost loop. When dealing with outerloops it is important to evaluate multiple vectorization candidates - including both outer and i...

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Shixiong Xu" <shixiong at cadence.com> > Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 11:05:35 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Cost model is missing in InstCombiner > +David M. > > On Aug 17, 2016, at 3:48 AM, Shixiong Xu

On Dec 15, 2009, at 5:15 PM, Erwin Coumans wrote: > The linux builds are not using SSE right now, but the vector data is > 16-byte aligned on all platforms. > So if you port this SSE code to another platform (Linux, Altivec, > NEON), you could contribute it back to Bullet? > The most interesting SSE part is the innerloop of the constraint > solver: http://tinyurl.com/ydoapct

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

Hello, Erwin > Although most of this is plain portable C++ perhaps LLVM can auto-vectorize > some of this? Well, I doubt so, unfortunately - LLVM does not have any autopar these days > There is a little bit of hand optimized x86 SSE code. This is only enabled > on 32bit Windows and Mac OSX Intel builds. Ok. What's about Linux builds? Are there any other implementations e.g.