search for: noaliasing

...d; aka in 'called'). > > > > My preference would go to (B) as that opens up more optimization > opportunities. > > > > I'm concerned that this isn't sound. So, imagine if I had something like > this: > > int * restrict r = a; > ... > int x = noaliasing ? *r : *a; > > then we need the aliasing load to retain its dependencies relative to > other things in the block. If we combine them into one load, it needs to be > the aliasing one. > > Thanks again, > > Hal > > [...] > > -- Neil Henning Senior Software Engine...

...uld be a 'store' in the context where the restrict is valid; aka in 'called'). My preference would go to (B) as that opens up more optimization opportunities. I'm concerned that this isn't sound. So, imagine if I had something like this: int * restrict r = a; ... int x = noaliasing ? *r : *a; then we need the aliasing load to retain its dependencies relative to other things in the block. If we combine them into one load, it needs to be the aliasing one. Thanks again, Hal Notes: - clang with 'full restrict' has similar behavior as the standard clang. - the collapsi...

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >> Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Clang Developers" <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>,

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com>, "Clang Developers" <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "LLVM Developers Mailing > List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >> Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com>, "Clang Developers" <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "LLVM

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Clang Developers" <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Dan Gohman" > <dan433584 at gmail.com> > Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com>, "Clang Developers" <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "LLVM Developers Mailing > List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Monday, December 3, 2012

2017-03-31 15:00 GMT+02:00 Than McIntosh <thanm at google.com>: > Hi all, > > Just to clarify: the code I'm seeing in the stack coloring dumps is a little > different from what is being discussed in previous spots in this thread. The > example that Michael cited earlier on was > > if (c) { > llvm.lifetime.start(&var) > } > [...] >

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >> Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com>, "Clang Developers" <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "LLVM

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com>, "Clang Developers" <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "LLVM Developers Mailing > List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Monday, December 3, 2012

So I've been narrowing down a very fun issue in our Burst compiler stack with respect to noalias support, and I've managed to basically boil this down to the following failure (see https://godbolt.org/z/-mdjPV): int called(int* __restrict__ a, int* b, int* c) { return *a + *b + *c; } int foo(int * x, int * y) { return *x + *y + called(x, x, y); } int bar(int * x, int * y) { return