search for: newrec

...uter mul and the inner addrec are guaranteed to have no overflow. // // No self-wrap cannot be guaranteed after changing the step size, but // will be inferred if either NUW or NSW is true. Flags = AddRec->getNoWrapFlags(clearFlags(Flags, SCEV::FlagNW)); const SCEV *NewRec = getAddRecExpr(NewOps, AddRecLoop, Flags); // If all of the other operands were loop invariant, we are done. if (Ops.size() == 1) return NewRec; I understand that you can't assume it won't wrap around with the new stride, but I couldn't find anything else later that would...

...drec are guaranteed to have no overflow. > // > // No self-wrap cannot be guaranteed after changing the step size, but > // will be inferred if either NUW or NSW is true. > Flags = AddRec->getNoWrapFlags(clearFlags(Flags, SCEV::FlagNW)); > const SCEV *NewRec = getAddRecExpr(NewOps, AddRecLoop, Flags); > > // If all of the other operands were loop invariant, we are done. > if (Ops.size() == 1) return NewRec; > > I understand that you can't assume it won't wrap around with the new stride, but I couldn't find anyth...

...// Build the new addrec. Propagate the NUW and NSW flags if both the > // outer add and the inner addrec are guaranteed to have no > overflow. > // Always propagate NW. > Flags = AddRec->getNoWrapFlags(setFlags(Flags, SCEV::FlagNW)); > const SCEV *NewRec = getAddRecExpr(AddRecOps, AddRecLoop, Flags); > > // If all of the other operands were loop invariant, we are done. > if (Ops.size() == 1) return NewRec; > > Thanks! > -- Sanjoy > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: &lt...

​Hi, Would you be able to kindly check and assist with the IndVarSimplify / SCEV problem I got in the latest LLVM, please? Sometimes IndVarSimplify may not eliminate narrow IV's when there actually exists such a possibility. This may affect other LLVM passes and result in inefficient code. The reproducing test 'indvar_test.cpp' is attached. The problem is with the second

On 16 November 2013 06:56, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > - getMulExpr constructs a new AddRec with NSW: > > Flags = AddRec->getNoWrapFlags(clearFlags(Flags, SCEV::FlagNW)); > const SCEV *NewRec = getAddRecExpr(NewOps, AddRecLoop, Flags); > Hi Andrew, Thanks for looking at this. Clearing the flags here makes sense, but it's being too conservative. I'm thinking I'll need something like propagateSafeFlags(...) with knowledge of the loop induction ranges or something else in...

...to.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > >> On 16 November 2013 06:56, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: >> - getMulExpr constructs a new AddRec with NSW: >> >> Flags = AddRec->getNoWrapFlags(clearFlags(Flags, SCEV::FlagNW)); >> const SCEV *NewRec = getAddRecExpr(NewOps, AddRecLoop, Flags); > > Hi Andrew, > > Thanks for looking at this. > > Clearing the flags here makes sense, but it's being too conservative. I'm thinking I'll need something like propagateSafeFlags(...) with knowledge of the loop induction ra...

Jakob, I think this exactly what's happening. I debugged the resolveReferences for the ADD down into the resolve of TSFlags. It calls VarInit::getFieldInit for the "Val" field of "foo". The code is: Init *VarInit::getFieldInit(Record &R, const RecordVal *RV, const std::string &FieldName) const { if (isa<RecordRecTy>(getType()))