similar to: [LLVMdev] LoopInfo

I now understand that IndVarSimplify.cpp is capable of reproducing array references when the pointer initialization from the array address is found inside the immediately enclosing loop, such that in the following code: int A[20000], B[100], Z; int main() { int i, j, *a, *b; for ( a = &A[0], i = 0; i != 200; i++ ) for ( b = &B[0], j = 0; j != 100; j++

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Naftali Schwartz wrote: > I now understand that IndVarSimplify.cpp is capable of reproducing array > references when the pointer initialization from the array address is found > inside the immediately enclosing loop, such that in the following code: Ok. > int A[20000], B[100], Z; > int main() > { > int i, j, *a, *b; > for ( a =

But even for a very simple loop: int test1 (int *x, int *y, int *z, int k) { int sum = 0; for (int i = 10; i < k; i++) { z[i] = x[i] / y[i]; } return sum; } The initial value of induction variable is not zero after compiling with -O3 -mcpu=power8 x.cpp -S -c -emit-llvm -fno-unroll-loops (see bottom of the email for IR) Also I can write somewhat more complicated loop where step

Hello, Recently I've come across two instances where Induction Variable Simplification lead to noticable performance regressions. In one case, the removal of extra IV lead to the inability to reschedule instructions in a tight loop to reduce stalls. In that case, there were enough registers to spare, so using extra register for extra induction variable was preferable since it reduced

I just subscribed this group. This is my first time to post a question (not sure if this is a right place for discussion) after I have a brief look at LLVM OPT (dev trunk). I would expect loop simplification and induction variable canonicalization pass (IndVarSimplify pass) should be able to convert the following loops into a simple canonical form, i.e., there is a canonical induction variable

Hi, InstCombine canonicalizes index operands (unless they are into struct types) to pointer size. The comment says: "If we are using a wider index than needed for this platform, shrink it to what we need. If narrower, sign-extend it to what we need. This explicit cast can make subsequent optimizations more obvious.". For our architecture, the canonicalization is a bit

On 02/01/2011 04:47 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > > I forgot to ask why you're doing this. If the goal is to remove a branch, that would typically be handled by BranchFolder during codegen after phis have been removed. I don't see a problem forcing the CFG to be more canonical earlier, but if the successor is in a deeper loop, then you could be eliminating a preheader and forcing

Interesting, thanks for digging this up! > As a consequence, any loop structure that is recognized > by SCEV will (/should) not profit from rewriting. As discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D68577#1742745 and PR40816 showed, there is still merit and profit in further simplifying loop induction variables, or at-least the primary one; somewhat independent of continuing to rely on SCEV for

On Feb 1, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > On Feb 1, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Andrew Clinton wrote: > >> I have a (non-entry) basic block that contains only PHI nodes and an >> unconditional branch (that does not branch to itself). Is it always >> possible to merge this block with it's successor and produce a >> semantically equivalent program? I'm

Hello all, I’m pretty new to LLVM. I'm writing a pass for loop optimization. I clone and rearrange loops, setting the cloned loop as the original loop’s parent. This can be done multiple times, until there is no more work to do. The trouble is, after the first time I do this, the cloned loop's SCEVs become unknown types when they should be AddRecExpr. If I re-run the whole pass on the

Your constructor is not calling initializeTestMPPass(), and you're using RegisterPass which I think was deprecated in favor of INITIALIZE_PASS. You can look at, for example, lib/Transforms/Scalar/IndVarSimplify.cpp for examples of how to initialize, e.g. having "INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(LoopInfo)" sandwiched between BEGIN and END. Note that you'll want a forward declaration of

The enlosed patch for IndVarSimplify.cpp works even when the pointer increment is deeply nested wrt pointer initialization, but note that it needs to have loop structures preserved, as in the following: int A[3000000], B[20000], C[100], Z; volatile int I, J, K; int main() { int i, j, k, *a, *b, *c; for ( a = &A[0], i = 0; i != 300; i++ ) { I++;

In my pass, I add LoopInfo as a required pass. Then I'd like to print the constant loop trip count of each loop if it has one. However, every time I call loop-> getSmallConstantTripCount(), it returns 0, even for a very simple loop: for(i=0; i<3; ++i) {;} What's the possible cause of this problem? regards, Bo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > Also, if these redundant expressions involve induction variables, then that's something that the IndVarSimplify is already supposed to do, and if it is missing cases, then we should improve that pass (and, thus, folding what you've done into IndVarSimplify might be the right way to go). Hal, thanks for the

Hi Sanjoy, I have attached the IR I got by compiling with -O2. This is just before we widen the IV. To get the backedge taken count info I ran indvars on it and then replaced zext with sext. I think regardless of where we decide to add this transformation in the pipeline, it should try to preserve as much information as it can. This means that we should generate sext for signed IVs and

Hi all, I'm attempting to perform loop unrolling on a single function using the C++ API. Maybe I missed something in the docs, but I cannot figure out a way to do this. The function I'm working with is very simple, containing a single for loop and not much else. I compiled the function to IR using clang with no optimizations enabled. My initial plan was to first run the IndVarSimplify

OK, thanks Chris, I've found that running opt -loopsimplify -instcombine -indvars -stats gives me the setup I need for this transformation, and a small patch makes it happen in the simple case we discussed. However, I'm having some trouble when things get a bit more complicated with 3 nesting levels: int A[3000000], B[20000], C[100], Z; int main() { int i, j, k, *a, *b,

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 1:01 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 2014, at 12:44 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > >> > There appear to be two chunks of "functionality" provided by loop >> passes: >> >

Hi all, TL;DR: Should the loop guard branch be part of the canonical loop structure? Background: ----------- While working on the next set of improvements to loop fusion, we discovered that loop rotation will put a guard around a loop if it cannot prove the loop will execute at least once, as seen in the following (simplified) example: entry: br i1 %cmp1, label %for.body.lr.ph, label

Hello, Quick question to see if I haven't missed anything: I would like convert counting down loops, i.e. loops with a constant -1 step value, to counting up loops, because the vectoriser is able to better deal with these loops (see e.g. D76838 that I was discussing today with Ayal). It looks like LoopSimplifyCFG and IndVarSimplify don't do this. So was just curious if I haven't