similar to: RFC: Extending loop metadata

Dear LLVM community, LLVM IR has a concept of 'LoopID' [1] which is a misnomer: (a) LoopIDs are not unique: Any pass that duplicates IR will do it including its metadata (e.g. LoopVersioning) such that thereafter multiple loops are linked with the same LoopID. There is even a test case (Transforms/LoopUnroll/unroll-pragmas-disabled.ll) for multiple loops with the same LoopID. (b)

I tried to manually assign each of 3 arrays a unique TBAA node. But it does not seem to help: alias analysis still considers arrays as may-alias, which most likely prevents the desired optimization. Below is the sample code with TBAA metadata inserted. Could you please suggest what might be wrong with it? Many thanks, - D. marcusmae at M17xR4:~/forge/llvm$ opt -time-passes -enable-tbaa -tbaa

Hi, I am trying to use the DependenceAnalysis pass to get the Distance vector for the innermost loop. I am in LLVM learing process. I have used the following code inside my original code to get the distance vector. It is not giving any syntax error but it is has some logical but and giving segmentation fault. void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.setPreservesAll();

R gurus, Every so often(*) someone asks how to suppress scientific notation in printing, so I thought I'd give it a shot, but I need some help. The formatting decision is made(**) on line 286 of src/main/format.c : if (mF <= *m) { /* IFF it needs less space : "F" (Fixpoint) format */ where mF is the number of characters for "normal" printing and *m is the number

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:49 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:24 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Hiroshi

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:24 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:15 AM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:38 AM,

On 02/17/2013 11:15 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > If the unroller somehow differentiates the metadata coming from different > loop iterations, then BBVectorize can use this information as well. Even > better, we could make BasicAA understand that appropriately marked loads > and stores from different iterations don't alias. Then the AA-based > dependency breaker in the scheduler could

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:24 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:15 AM

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pekka Jääskeläinen" <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Andrew Trick" <atrick at apple.com>, "Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es>, "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Dev" > <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013

I noticed that LoopVectorizeHints::setAlreadyVectorized never deletes old "llvm.loop...." metadata. It just appends more, possibly contradicting the old metadata. E.g., after vectorization, a loop previously marked with llvm.loop.vectorize.width ends up with *two* such annotations, like this: br i1 %exitcond.1, label %for.end.loopexit.unr-lcssa, label %for.body, !llvm.loop !8

On 05/11/2018 08:40 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev wrote: > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com > <mailto:yamauchi at google.com>> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:49 PM Daniel Berlin > <dberlin at dberlin.org <mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org>> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May

I thought jumps start short and relaxation widens them as needed until fixpoint. So relax-all causes them all to be widened unconditionally. On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Nirav Davé <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > wrote: > >> In any case, the issue appears to be that

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:15 AM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> ( >> ​I came across this issue in the context of >> D46336 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D46336>. >> ​ ​ >> Thanks, Sanjay, for starting this

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:15 AM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> ( >>> ​I came across this issue in

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:49 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:24

I mentioned this earlier in the thread - I would like to see something like D41574 in the optimizer. It's optimizing code that no other pass does currently, and I don't see any other near-term proposal that gets us those optimizations. Omer, can you rebase that to trunk? I think a header has moved, so it doesn't build as-is. I'd like to know if it can catch the cases in D45842. If

Here's an attempt to nail down the annotation semantics with support for respecting forward lexical dependences. Each load, store, call, or invoke instruction can be labeled with !llvm.mem.vector_loop_access, which has two operands: * The first operand is an integer denoting lexical position. The positions need not be consecutive, and may contain duplicates. * The second operand is the

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > ( > ​I came across this issue in the context of > D46336 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D46336>. > ​ ​ > Thanks, Sanjay, for starting this discussion.) > > If > ​we will > move > ​reassociation, > or keep additional ones > ​,​ > out of instcombine,

Hi Philip, Your idea make sense to me in my first thought. Thank you for the idea. I will take more time to think it over to see it can help to reduce the complexity of tile register allocation. Yuanke From: Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 11:29 AM To: Luo, Yuanke <yuanke.luo at intel.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; florian_hahn at

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:20 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 05/11/2018 08:40 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:49 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> >> wrote: >>