similar to: Help on finding Base GEP

You can run SCEV which will see through bitcasts and GEPs, so it should give an expression of the form (base + offset) on the pointer of the load. Cheers siddharth On Wed 30 May, 2018, 16:30 Venkataramanan Kumar via llvm-dev, < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Below is the snippet of LLVM IR code generated by Flang > > ---snip-- > %3 = getelementptr i64,

On 05/30/2018 06:04 AM, Siddharth Bhat via llvm-dev wrote: > You can run SCEV which will see through bitcasts and GEPs, so it > should give an expression of the form (base + offset) on the pointer > of the load. Specifically, you can use ScalarEvolution to subtract the expression for the base descriptor from the expression for the loaded pointer and see if the result is a SCEVConstant.

What are you querying the alias analysis on in the above example - between the load and store? How are you creating your MemoryLocation for those too? On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 6:03 AM Venkataramanan Kumar via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Can someone please clarify me on this? > > > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 22:25, Venkataramanan Kumar < >

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 4:58 AM Venkataramanan Kumar < venkataramanan.kumar.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I tired to see when this behavior changed in LLVM. > It seems to start from. > --snip-- > commit 95e5d37d5868ebde2302bc302c1e0af407c5646d > Author: Sebastian Pop <sebpop at gmail.com> > Date: Tue Mar 6 21:55:59 2018 +0000 > > DA: remove

Hi Venkat., Did you make progress with libmvec? Is there a chance that it lands into clang 11? Regards, Alexandre Bique On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 11:50 AM Venkataramanan Kumar <venkataramanan.kumar.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Florian, > > On Tue, 1 Sep, 2020, 3:11 pm Florian Hahn, <florian_hahn at apple.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Sep 1,

Hi, > On Sep 1, 2020, at 10:26, Venkataramanan Kumar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Alexandre, > > On Tue, 1 Sep, 2020, 2:21 pm Alexandre Bique, <bique.alexandre at gmail.com <mailto:bique.alexandre at gmail.com>> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 9:07 AM Venkataramanan Kumar > <venkataramanan.kumar.llvm at gmail.com

Hi, I am trying to understand how assume shaped arrays are received and processed in LLVM IR. I am using "flang" for my front end. There seems to be an array descriptor received as implicit argument for every assume shaped array. For my test routine: ---snip-- SUBROUTINE test(a,b,Li,Lj,Istr,Iend,Jstr,Jend) INTEGER, INTENT(IN) :: Li,Lj INTEGER, INTENT(IN) :: Istr, Iend,

Hi, For the below test case, I need the dependence distance between the array references "a[j][i]" and "a[j-1][i-2]". --Snip-- int a[5][5]; int b[10]; void test() { for (int j=1;j<5;j++) for (int i=2;i<5;i++) { a[j][i] = 3.0; b[i]= a[j-1][i-2] ; } } --Snip-

Hi, I have the following LLVM IR. ----Snip--- %1 = getelementptr inbounds %struct._X, %struct._X* %0, i64 0, i32 3 %2 = load %struct._X*, %struct._X** %1, align 8, !tbaa !10 .... ..... ....... %3 = bitcast %struct._Y** %1 to i8** store i8* null, i8** %3, align 8, !tbaa !9 !9 = !{!7, !7, i64 0} !7 = !{!"omnipotent char", !8, i64 0} !8 = !{!"Simple C/C++ TBAA"} ----Snip----

Hi Micheal, Thanks for the blog post. Just like to point out few things that I thought is related to FP Numerics. LLVM could do some additional transformation with "sqrt" and "division" under fast math on X86 like 1/sqrt(x)* 1/sqrt(x) to 1/x. These are long latency instructions and could get benefit if enabled under unsafe math. Also are we considering doing such FP

Hello, I believe these descriptors are specific to flang, not to LLVM. You should probably ask your question on flang-dev list. Thank you, --Eugene From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Venkataramanan Kumar via llvm-dev Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 8:44 AM To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: [llvm-dev] Help on understanding assume shape array

Hi, I have the below test case. --snip-- struct st { int a; int b; }; int * ptr; int x,y; void bar(int *x); void foo() { struct st obj; bar(&obj.b); if(x) obj.a =x; else obj.a =y; for (int i=0; i<obj.a;i++) ptr[i]=i; } --snip-- LLVM IR produced at -O3 is shown below. ref: https://godbolt.org/z/WPlmfr --Snip-- %8 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.st,

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 9:07 AM Venkataramanan Kumar <venkataramanan.kumar.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Alexandre, Hi Venkataramanan, > I am not sure if we can generate vector calls to GlibC libmvec. Is the support for libmvec on the roadmap? If not how to add it? > ./clang --autocomplete=-fveclib= This is amazing, thank you! I think it should be documented in clang auto

TBAA Question. Please consider the following test case. ---Snip-- struct B { int b1; int b2; }; struct C { int b1; }; struct A { int a1; struct C SC; int a2; }; int foo1(struct A * Aptr, struct B* Bptr) { int *a = &Aptr->SC.b1; *a=10; Bptr->b1 = 11; return *a; } int foo2(struct A * Aptr, struct B* Bptr) { Aptr->SC.b1=10; Bptr->b1 = 11; return

----Snip-- struct st1{ int a; }; struct st2{ int b; }; struct st { struct st1 obj1; struct st2 obj2; }Obj; int test1(struct st1 * ptr1 , struct st2 * ptr2, struct st2 *ptr3) { ptr1->a = 10; *ptr3 = *ptr2; return ptr1->a; } --Snip--- For the above case GCC is able to store forward the value 10 to the return place. LLVM is not doing this. GCC https://godbolt.org/z/FCjCXy LLVM

I've tried to do: clang++ -O3 -march=native -mtune=native \ -Rpass=loop-vectorize,slp-vectorize -Rpass-missed=loop-vectorize,slp-vectorize -Rpass-analysis=loop-vectorize,slp-vectorize \ -ffast-math -ffp-model=fast -ffp-exception-behavior=ignore -ffp-contract=fast \ -c -o vec.o vec.cc But I've got no feedback. -- Alexandre Bique

On 07/02/2018 04:33 PM, Saito, Hideki wrote: > >   > > >It may not be a full solution for the problems you're trying to solve > >   > > If we are inventing a new solution, I’d like it also to solve OpenMP > declare simd legalization issue. If a small extension of existing scheme > > works for mathlib only, I’m happy to take that and discuss OpenMP >

It may not be a full solution for the problems you're trying to solve, but I don't know why adding to include/llvm/CodeGen/RuntimeLibcalls.def is a problem in itself. Certainly, it's a mess that could be organized, especially so we're not repeating everything for each data type as we do right now. So yes, I think that would allow us to remove the VecLib mappings because we are

Hi Folks, We are a group of LLVM compiler developers in Hyderabad area. Considering few previous mail about meetups in India, we are planning to organize LLVM meetups in India evry monthly or bimonthly in the best interest of other developers. Based on the concentration of developers Pune, Bangalore and Hyderabad are the location we have in mind. Interested folks please reply stating ur

The GEP constructor does not assert that the source and destination types match. Of course, this is incorrect and causes random failures somewhere down the line. Could I add general sanity checks to the GEP constructor? In general, is an Instruction allowed to be in an inconsistent state? If so, is there some well known method to "verify" whether an instruction is consistent or not?