similar to: Pass ordering - GVN vs. loop optimizations

Hi, If we add multiple loop passes to the pass manager in PassManagerBuilder.cpp consecutively without any func/module pass in between, I used to think they would belong to the same loop pass manager. But it does not seem to be the case. For example for this code snippet PM.add(createIndVarSimplifyPass()); // Canonicalize indvars MPM.add(createLoopIdiomPass()); //

On 04/17/2013 09:04 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > Tobias Grosser wrote: >> As said before, we could probably add it in between those two passes: >> >> MPM.add(createReassociatePass()); // Reassociate expressions >> + addExtensionsToPM(EP_LoopOptimizerStart, MPM); >> MPM.add(createLoopRotatePass()); // Rotate Loop > > As this is in the middle of other

Tobias Grosser wrote: > As said before, we could probably add it in between those two passes: > > MPM.add(createReassociatePass()); // Reassociate expressions > + addExtensionsToPM(EP_LoopOptimizerStart, MPM); > MPM.add(createLoopRotatePass()); // Rotate Loop As this is in the middle of other LNO passes, can you please rename s/EP_LoopOptimizerStart/EP_Polly_LNO/ or

Hi all, Attached herewith is a simple vectorized function with loops performing a simple shuffle. I want all loops (inner and outer) to be unrolled by 2 and as such used -unroll-count=2 The inner loops(with k as the induction variable and having constant trip counts) unroll fully, but the outer loop with (j) fails to unroll. The llvm code is also attached with inner loops fully unrolled. To

Hi, I would like to run the -O1 pass sequence followed by -reg2mem from an out of tree project which uses llvm. I am using the following code snippet to do so but in some cases, my method is also vectorising the code, which doesn't happen when running the same sequence(-S -O1 -reg2mem) through opt. Can someone please help me find what I am missing? Thanks, Akash. *

Thanks for the explanation. But I am a little confused with the following fact. Can't LLVM keep vectorizable_elements as a symbolic value and convert the loop to say; for(unsigned i = 0; i < vectorizable_elements ; i += 2){ //main loop } for(unsigned i=0 ; i < vectorizable_elements % 2; i++){ //fix up } Why does it have to reason about the range of vectorizable_elements? Even

Here is an update about moving Polly later. 1. Why does Polly generate incorrect code when we move Polly immediately after the loop rotating pass? It is mainly caused by a wrong polly merge block. When Polly detects a valid loop for Polyhedral transformations, it usually introduces a new basic block "polly.merge_new_and_old" after the original loop exit block. This new basic block

If count > MAX_UINT-4 your loop loops indefinitely with an increment of 4, I think. On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Charith Mendis via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > So, I tried unrolling the following simple loop. > > int unroll(unsigned * a, unsigned * b, unsigned *c, unsigned count){ > > for(unsigned i=0; i<count; i++){ > > a[i] =

On 09/25/2013 04:55 AM, Star Tan wrote: > Here is an update about moving Polly later. Hi star tan, thanks for your report. > > 1. Why does Polly generate incorrect code when we move Polly immediately after the loop rotating pass? > > It is mainly caused by a wrong polly merge block. When Polly detects a valid loop for Polyhedral transformations, it usually introduces a new basic

On 04/17/2013 08:37 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > Tobias Grosser wrote: >> On 04/17/2013 05:53 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> polly is run very early and schedules the following passes before it runs: >>> >>> /// @brief Schedule a set of canonicalization passes to prepare for Polly >>> /// >>> /// The set of

Hi, Sean: I'm sorry I lie. I didn't mean to lie. I did try to avoid making a *BIG* change to the IPO pass-ordering for now. However, when I make a minor change to populateLTOPassManager() by separating module-pass and non-module-passes, I saw quite a few performance difference, most of them are degradations. Attacking these degradations one by one in a piecemeal manner is wasting

Andy and I briefly discussed this the other day, we have not yet got chance to list a detailed pass order for the pre- and post- IPO scalar optimizations. This is wish-list in our mind: pre-IPO: based on the ordering he propose, get rid of the inlining (or just inline tiny func), get rid of all loop xforms... post-IPO: get rid of inlining, or maybe we still need it, only

Hi Tobias, At 2013-09-19 22:59:25,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 09/19/2013 04:46 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> Hi Tobias, >> >> >> I am trying to move Polly later. >> >> >> LLVM provides some predefined ExtensionPointTy: >> EP_EarlyAsPossible, >> EP_ModuleOptimizerEarly, >>

Revision 190916 Commit message: "Lift alignment restrictions for load/store folding on VINSERTF128/VEXTRACTF128. Fixes PR17268." Actual contents of the commit includes Index: tools/opt/opt.cpp =================================================================== --- tools/opt/opt.cpp (revision 190915) +++ tools/opt/opt.cpp (revision 190916) @@ -462,6 +462,7 @@

I'm working on a whole program optimizer that uses LLVM as a library, and one of the things I want to do is eliminate dead global functions and variables even when they are not local to a module. (This understandably doesn't happen by default because the optimizer has to assume it could be compiling a library rather than a program.) I've actually written a function to do this, but

Basically, the way puppet installs things things with /usr/bin/apt-get -q -y -o DPkg::Options::=--force-confold install <package_name> fails due to authentication WARNING: The following packages cannot be authenticated But if I do it from an ssh console normally, using apt-get install <package_name> it works fine without issues. Is there a way to change how puppet uses the

Hello, I've recently changed AddressSanitizer (asan) compiler pass from ModulePass to FunctionPass and it could a bit of mayhem. The problem is that asan FunctionPass instruments a function foo, then foo gets inlined into bar, then bar gets instrumented and thus the code of foo gets instrumented twice (which causes run-time crash). This happens only at -O0; at -O1 we get the correct order of

Hi all, I am facing facing performance issues with our web servers which is working for concurrent 250 requests properly and then stops responding when the requests are more than 250 . The current configuration parameters are as follows : apachectl -version Server version: Apache/2.0.52 Server built: Jan 30 2007 09:56:16 Kernel : 2.6.9-55.ELsmp #1 SMP Fri Apr 20 16:36:54 EDT 2007 x86_64

Here is some timing information from running the Zig standard library tests: $ ./zig test ../std/index.zig --enable-timing-info Name Start End Duration Percent Initialize 0.0000 0.0010 0.0010 0.0001 Semantic Analysis 0.0010 0.9968 0.9958 0.1192 Code Generation 0.9968 1.4000 0.4032

Tobias Grosser wrote: > On 04/17/2013 05:53 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > >Hi, > > > >polly is run very early and schedules the following passes before it runs: > > > >/// @brief Schedule a set of canonicalization passes to prepare for Polly > >/// > >/// The set of optimization passes was partially taken/copied from the > >/// set of default