search for: iv8

...= getelementptr i1, i1* %lsr.iv56, i32 %0 %2 = bitcast i1* %scevgep7 to i32* %exitcond27 = icmp eq i32 %inc10, %Size br i1 %exitcond27, label %for.cond.cleanup.loopexit, label %for.body.4.lr.ph for.body.4: ; preds = %for.body.4, %for.body.4.lr.ph %lsr.iv8 = phi i32* [ %scevgep9, %for.body.4 ], [ %lsr.iv5, %for.body.4.lr.ph ] %lsr.iv3 = phi i32* [ %scevgep4, %for.body.4 ], [ %lsr.iv1, %for.body.4.lr.ph ] %lsr.iv = phi i32 [ %lsr.iv.next, %for.body.4 ], [ %Size, %for.body.4.lr.ph ] %3 = load i32, i32* %lsr.iv8, align 4, !tbaa !1 %mul5 = mul i3...

...%Src12, i32 %lsr.iv10 %uglygep13 = bitcast i8* %uglygep to i32* %uglygep15 = getelementptr i8, i8* %Dst14, i32 %lsr.iv10 %uglygep1516 = bitcast i8* %uglygep15 to i32* br label %for.body.4 for.body.4: ; preds = %for.body.4, %for.body.4.lr.ph %lsr.iv8 = phi i32* [ %scevgep9, %for.body.4 ], [ %uglygep13, %for.body.4.lr.ph ] %lsr.iv3 = phi i32* [ %scevgep4, %for.body.4 ], [ %uglygep1516, %for.body.4.lr.ph ] %lsr.iv = phi i32 [ %lsr.iv.next, %for.body.4 ], [ %Size, %for.body.4.lr.ph ] %1 = load i32, i32* %lsr.iv8, align 4, !tbaa !0 %mul...

...evgep7 to i32* > > %exitcond27 = icmp eq i32 %inc10, %Size > > br i1 %exitcond27, label %for.cond.cleanup.loopexit, label % > for.body.4.lr.ph > > > > for.body.4: ; preds = > > %for.body.4, %for.body.4.lr.ph > > %lsr.iv8 = phi i32* [ %scevgep9, %for.body.4 ], [ %lsr.iv5, > > %for.body.4.lr.ph ] > > %lsr.iv3 = phi i32* [ %scevgep4, %for.body.4 ], [ %lsr.iv1, > > %for.body.4.lr.ph ] > > %lsr.iv = phi i32 [ %lsr.iv.next, %for.body.4 ], [ %Size, % > for.body.4.lr.ph ] > > %3 = loa...

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

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >> Should we try the patch in it's current location, namely after LSR? > > Sure; post the patch as you have it so we can look at what's going on. > http://reviews.llvm.org/D12494 One particular point: The algorithm checks that SCEV's are equal when their raw pointers are equal. Is

...iv2RbgrfAM2FohfJ70VYl9xV+/1ZUVW2OiCR11Iaxe2/RHg kwBNr/mgpORElTOyBc3pzSuP1kdPKlpSMZUfRcejCMNROguQEaCjSKOjGOQohrMClwNaAP2ACwAN YIR2DtaxTcdW4EJAOaAFsBZwAWDUzbkAUzgtARYmPqsbVghcDqgTNX4URVxnubjLN8LmsHltU6Vt DmbNZnXZWjYvpjRxaZuUaE6MsPj9n8f/8/N4iqmI4Vv5NhqBQGwfotvCX4zAP9BDYc8hZ0Uq+yFl y8g6NpE8LBe0hLr1+gRymIV8PDn4U6BFYcct6GYNe/KdB1mC6LXf+YXjvPMjR4SD/dBxyPl7JSKz sPN3kDy13/mW4z7nK4URMySHPREGclDRVQ84SpxPH9dV16Fhd9i5RpD9zrsdU5wLHXpDR7Thtm7U fFZnvWeWcyrGq3bMcfq6MeZ+Z7njNmdpVGuC6LPfOQYmeKNsHowd5dAndWfrAzYWR1inL9+009Rk qsPdV5Ep3+QyOU0jTFmmFHOS2WZOMFvMsWaz2WiWzRy3fSkRvDN4xX9PihF38IyMSGj8e+m8DScM 0/94xLnGzBwXJGqy...