similar to: Dump Module IR with SCEV as comment

On 3/22/2018 6:29 PM, Alexandre Isoard via llvm-dev wrote: > Hello, > > Is there a way to dump the Module IR with the SCEV as comment at the > end of each line? AssemblyAnnotationWriter exists, but I don't think anyone has hooked it up to SCEV, specifically. -Eli -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,

Hello, I was thinking about printing SCEV into DiagnosticInfo messages, an example would be to print the loop trip count of loops, or the stride of memory accesses. I ran into two problems: - DiagnosticInfo is in Core, SCEV is in Analysis, so it is a little bit weird (I declare the operator<< overload for SCEV* in DiagnosticInfo, but only define it in ScalarEvolution) - I would like to

Note that there is a slight difficulty due to the fact that we "sink" the trunc: (zext i16 {0,+,1}<%bb> to i32) + (65536 * ({0,+,1}<nuw><%bb> /u 65536) Here the recurrence lost it's <nuw> and got reduced to a i16 (on the left), but not on the right. But we can prove: - that (zext i16 {0,+,1}<%bb> to i32) has the same 16 LSB than (i32

Hello, I assumed SCEV purpose was to be a normal form, but then I wondered which one of those is the normal form: (zext i16 (trunc i32 %a to i16) to i32) vs (-((%a /u 65536) *u 65536) + %a) The first one is nice for interval analysis, and known bit analysis. The second one is nice when plugged into gep of 2d arrays. -- *Alexandre Isoard* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

Ok. To go back to the original issue, would it be meaningful to add a SCEVUMax(0, BTC) on the final BTC computed by SCEV? So that it does not use "negative values"? On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 2:40 PM Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 8/15/2018 2:27 PM, Alexandre Isoard wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand the poison/undef/UB distinctions. >

I'm not sure I understand the poison/undef/UB distinctions. But on this example: define i32 @func(i1 zeroext %b, i32 %x, i32 %y) { > entry: > %adds = add nsw i32 %x, %y > %addu = add nuw i32 %x, %y > %cond = select i1 %b, i32 %adds, i32 %addu > ret i32 %cond > } It is important to not propagate the nsw/nuw between the two SCEV expressions (which unification would

Hello, I was doing some experiments with SCEV and especially the loop trip count. Sorry for the dumb question, what is the easiest way to dump SCEV analysis results on a .bc file? On a side note, I wanted to see if we could optimize this function: unsigned long kernel(long w, long h, long d) { unsigned long count = 0; for(int i = 0; i < w; ++i) for(int j = i; j < h; ++j) for(int k = j; k

Is that why we do not deduce +<nsw> from "add nsw" either? Is that an intrinsic limitation of creating a context-invariant expressions from a Value* or is that a limitation of our implementation (our unification not considering the nsw flags)? On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 12:39 PM Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 8/15/2018 12:21 PM, Alexandre Isoard via

Hello, If I run clang on the following code: void func(unsigned n) { > for (unsigned long x = 1; x < n; ++x) > dummy(x); > } I get the following llvm ir: define void @func(i32 %n) { > entry: > %conv = zext i32 %n to i64 > %cmp5 = icmp ugt i32 %n, 1 > br i1 %cmp5, label %for.body, label %for.cond.cleanup > for.cond.cleanup:

Hello, I noticed that our SCEVUDiv does not simplify anything when the RHS is not a constant. Is that because there is a potential issue with division by zero being simplified? For instance, would it be okay to simplify: ((%i * %n)<nuw> /u %n) into: %i The way I see it, if %n is 0, then that division is undefined and we can "define it", at will, as being %i. Would that make

Hi Alex, Sanjoy, exposing the internal IRBuilder to users of SCEVExpander violates information hiding, and encourages the tight coupling that makes code bases such as Polly so hard to maintain. SCEVExpander::expandCodeFor returns a Value that (if it's an instruction) can be used to update the insert point of the client's IRBuilder. Is that not enough? No hidden state, no hidden state

Hello, I use SCEVExpander and IRBuilder to generate some code and I frequently end-up breaking dominance because the SCEVExpander insertion point and the IRBuilder insertion point do not advance in synchrony. Ideally, I could build a SCEVExpander based on an existing IRBuilder (so that they move each other). Or even better, SCEVExpander inherit from IRBuilder and basically extend it with SCEV

Hi Alexandre, Sorry I missed this -- I was on vacation when you sent this. SCEVExpander already has an IRBuilder in it but AFAICT it isn't exposed as a public interface. I'd be fine if you wanted to expose a public `GetIRBuilder()` accessor that let a SCEVExpander client use the same IRBuilder as SCEVExpander. -- Sanjoy On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Alexandre Isoard via llvm-dev

Hey, Alternatively, expose a SCEVExpander::getInsertPoint? This would proxy the underlying IRbuilder, with no real state sharing, other than the current insert point. This will be less ugly than recieving the expanded SCEV value, casting to an instruction, and feeding this to the IRBuilder. Cheers, siddharth On Thu 3 May, 2018, 15:36 Philip Pfaffe via llvm-dev, < llvm-dev at

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] =

Hello, We have some transformations based on SCEV and they usually end-up making heuristic decision based on SCEV comparison. While there are some situations where the comparison is trivial (subtract then look at the sign of the range), there are also a lot of situation where it is not (the range contains 0 strictly [aka. not on the boundary]). And we then take a "default" choice. To

Hi, Even if there are no ways in which a *frontend* can produce nsw truncs, it may still be useful to have if optimization passes can usefully attach nsw to truncates (after proving the truncates don't "overflow"). For instance in %a = ashr i64 %v, i32 33 %t = trunc %a to i32 the trunc can be marked nsw. However, the burden of proof here is to show that we can do some useful

And again... LLVM_BUILD_LLVM_DYLIB:BOOL=ON LLVM_LINK_LLVM_DYLIB:BOOL=ON This one is the good one... maybe. On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Alexandre Isoard < alexandre.isoard at gmail.com> wrote: > That is because I mistyped it: > LLVM_ENABLE_LLVM_DYLIB:BOOL=ON > LLVM_LINK_LLVM_DYLIB:BOOL=ON > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Wink Saville <wink at saville.com>

> FWIW: We could also just have a mode that dumps 1 file per pass. That is enough to make it convenient/easy to run diff between passes. (And if you wanted to you could still > make a git repository out of it with an external script). > > - Matthias I have done this before and would strongly encourage this approach as opposed to direct emission to std[out|err] or directly involving a

Hi, I am working with SCEVs, I see the unsigned division of SCEVs, it is not immediately clear to me why the signed division of SCEV expressions is not supported by SE? I would appreciate if some could clarify or point me to some links. -- Regards, DTharun -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: