similar to: ScalarEvolution questions

Thanks Sanjoy, I'll look into this. -----Original Message----- From: Sanjoy Das [mailto:sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:07 AM To: Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] ScalarEvolution questions Hi Ashutosh, On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 3:28 AM, Nema, Ashutosh via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

Hi Sanjoy, Your inputs really helped. Using “isImpliedCond”, able to relate and find the min for cases like: SCEV1: (-1 + (sext i32 %n.addr.058 to i64))<nsw> SCEV2: 0 Extra-Condition: (n.addr.058 > 7) Result: ‘0’ (SCEV2) I have another case where trying to find min between two SCEVs under an extra condition. “isImpliedCond” is not helping for below case, may be I’m missing something:

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:24 AM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> wrote: > Hi Sanjoy, > > Your inputs really helped. > > Using “isImpliedCond”, able to relate and find the min for cases like: > > SCEV1: (-1 + (sext i32 %n.addr.058 to i64))<nsw> > SCEV2: 0 > Extra-Condition: (n.addr.058 > 7) > Result: ‘0’ (SCEV2) > > I have another case

Hi Ashutosh, On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 3:28 AM, Nema, Ashutosh via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I’m new to ScalarEvolution and wanted to explore its capabilities. > > I have following few questions: > > 1) How to compare SCEV expressions. > > I have a situation to compare two SCEV to find the min among them. > > Found an existing

Hello all, I was looking for an analysis pass that could provide comprehensive information on pointer arithmetic in the context of whole-program optimization. It seems that Scalar Evolution provides exactly what I'm looking for, but it is restricted to only intraprocedural analysis. E.g., consider this toy snippet: void foo(int* p) { (*p)++; } int bar() { int i; for (i = 0; i < n;

The Problem? Nowaday, SCEV called "Scalar Evolution" does only evolate instructions that has predictable operand, Constant-Based operand. such as that can evolute as a constant. otherwise we couldn't evolate it as SCEV node, evolated as SCEVUnknown. important thing that we remember is, we do not use SCEV only for Loop Deletion, which that doesn't really needed on nature loops

> Thanks for the details. Please add them to a bug report. I will do this. > InstCombine is certainly interfering with our ability to analyze the loop. I think the problem is that ScalarEvolution cannot reason about signed division. This is a general problem independent of your target. At the moment I'm not sure if we can teach ScalarEvolution to reason about this, or if we can defer

On Feb 7, 2013, at 10:53 AM, Michele Scandale <michele.scandale at gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks for the details. Please add them to a bug report. > > I will do this. Thanks. >> InstCombine is certainly interfering with our ability to analyze the loop. I think the problem is that ScalarEvolution cannot reason about signed division. This is a general problem independent of

> On Mar 20, 2015, at 8:02 PM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> wrote: > > > Yes, this is what I was proposing above and here ;): > Thanks Adam it’s for confirming J NP :). > > > No, not hasLoopInvariantStore but hasAccessToLoopInvariantAddress. > Its only for invariant stores[not loads], Using ‘hasLoopInvariantStore’ (or a name with invariant store)

Yes, I can get "SCEVAddRecExpr" from operands of "(sext i32 {2,+,2}<%for.body4> to i64)". So whenever SCEV cast to "SCEVAddRecExpr" fails, we have drill down for such patterns ? Is that the right way ? Regards, Ashutosh -----Original Message----- From: Nick Lewycky [mailto:nicholas at mxc.ca] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 1:02 PM To: Nema, Ashutosh Cc:

So, I won't know the called function statically, Right? -------------------------------------------- Qiuping Yi Institute Of Software Chinese Academy of Sciences On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> wrote: > Typically for C++ virtual function you will see an indirect callSite > (unless not de-virtualized). > > > > Regards, >

> On Mar 19, 2015, at 9:46 PM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> wrote: > > Thanks Adam for your reply. > > From: Adam Nemet [mailto:anemet at apple.com <mailto:anemet at apple.com>] > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 3:23 AM > To: Nema, Ashutosh > Cc: Hal Finkel; Philip Reames; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Subject:

<Copied Cong> Thanks Elena. Mostly I was interested in why such a high cost 30 kept for TRUNCATE v16i32 to v16i8 in SSE41. Looking at the code it appears like TRUNCATE v16i32 to v16i8 in SSE41 is very expensive vs SSE2. I feel this number should be same/close to the cost mentioned for same operation in SSE2ConversionTbl. Below patch from Cong Hou reduce cost for same operation in SSE2

Hi Ashutosh, > On Mar 16, 2015, at 9:06 PM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> wrote: > > Hi Adam, > > From: Adam Nemet [mailto:anemet at apple.com <mailto:anemet at apple.com>] > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 10:48 AM > To: Nema, Ashutosh > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: Loop

Summarizing the discussion on the implementation approaches. Discussed about two approaches, first running ‘InnerLoopVectorizer’ again on the epilog loop immediately after vectorizing the original loop within the same vectorization pass, the second approach where re-running vectorization pass and limiting vectorization factor of epilog loop by metadata. <Approach-2> Challenges with

Dear Ashutosh, Thank you, I can handle some indirect callSites by getFunction() of InvokInst and CallInst. However, when I am handling C++ programs, I found the calls of member functions are converted to some strange indirect calls. For example: table->truncate(sysTransaction); // from mysql are translated to the next complex llvm IR: _ZN8Database20getSystemTransactionEv.exit: ;

It seems that http://reviews.llvm.org/D15690 only implemented gather/scatter for AVX-512, but not for AVX/AVX2. Is there any plan to enable gather for AVX/2? Thanks. Best, Zhi On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > I don't think gather has been enabled for AVX2 as of r261875. > Masked load/store were enabled for AVX with: >

Hello, I have installed Samba version 3.0.13 on a Solaris 9 machine and am trying to add it to an existing NT domain as a member server. I have followed the instructions in Chapter 2 of the Samba HOW-TO collection for adding a samba server as a Domain member. The problem is that when i use the net rpc join command to join the domain, I get the following error: # ./net rpc join -U

If I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that vgather* is slow on all of Excavator, Haswell, Broadwell, and Skylake (client). Therefore, we will not generate it for any of those machines. Even if that's true, we should not define "gatherIsSlow()" as "hasAVX2() && !hasAVX512()". It could break for some hypothetical future processor that manages to

Hi Nick, Thanks for looking into it. I have tried that as well but it didn't worked. "AddExpr->getOperand(0))" node is: " (4 * (sext i32 {2,+,2}<%for.body4> to i64))<nsw>" When I cast this to "SCEVAddRecExpr" it returns NULL. Regards, Ashutosh -----Original Message----- From: Nick Lewycky [mailto:nicholas at mxc.ca] Sent: Thursday, March 19,