similar to: [LLVMdev] SelectionDAG, loops

On Feb 7, 2012, at 12:10 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: >>> 1. "Target Data" for vectorization - I think that in order to improve >>> the vectorization quality, the vectorizer will need more information >>> about the target. This information could be provided in the form of a >>> kind of extended target data. This extended target data might contain:

On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 14:26 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Feb 2, 2012, at 7:56 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > > As some of you may know, I committed my basic-block autovectorization > > pass a few days ago. I encourage anyone interested to try it out (pass > > -vectorize to opt or -mllvm -vectorize to clang) and provide feedback. > > Especially in combination with

On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 17:26 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Feb 7, 2012, at 12:10 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > >>> 1. "Target Data" for vectorization - I think that in order to improve > >>> the vectorization quality, the vectorizer will need more information > >>> about the target. This information could be provided in the form of a > >>>

Thank you, Duncan. I rewrote the code, please help check why it still does not work: //declare global variable const Type *IntTy = Type::getInt32Ty(M.getContext()); const Type *ATyC = ArrayType::get(Type::getInt64Ty(M.getContext()), 1); GlobalVariable *CounterSize = new GlobalVariable(M, ATyC, false, GlobalValue::InternalLinkage,

Hi Guangming Tan, > I rewrote the code, please help check why it still does not work: next time please be more explicit about exactly what goes wrong. > //create a getelementptr instruction: we want get &Counters[OldCounterSize] > std::vector<Value*>new_idx; > new_idx.push_back(OldCounterSize); // ERROR? > Value *nextaddr = GetElementPtrInst::Create(Counters,

Hello. In order to detect a problem in the initial selection DAG creation that I have in my back end I need to output detailed debug info from the SelectionDAG.cpp module with all the TableGen records that are being processed, and compare between a working back end and my buggy back end. I can debug by adding myself DEBUG() statements in the visit*() methods of the SelectionDAG.cpp

Hi, Transform/LoopStrengthReduction/post-inc-icmpzero.ll was failing for clang-native-arm-cortex-a9 build-bot configuration. The reason for the failure was the test was using hardcoded names. The attached patch fixes this failure by replacing the hard-coded variables names with pattern-matched variable names. I have checked that the test pass after applying the patch. Could somebody please

Hi, I am trying to locate the passes run by clang/opt when it is passed the option -O3. Can someone point me where to look at? Eventually, I want to turn off just the LoopStrengthReduction pass in the -O3 set of default passes. Thanks, Best Regards, Nitish -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Oct 5, 2012, at 2:11 PM, "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > Is it possible to not make it 'Target*'? I'm spending a lot of time moving TargetData out, would hate to have to do it again at some point in the future for TargetVectorData. :) There is an important difference here (and a common point of confusion) between TargetData and the the stuff

> On Feb 12, 2019, at 4:02 AM, Björn Pettersson A via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > (Sorry if this subject already has been discussed, but I could not find any clear rules/recommendations.) > > What would the recommendation be for acronyms (I’ve seen the rule about avoiding them unless they are “well known”, > but sometimes an acronym is useful, and we

Hi Manish, Thanks for the patch, I'll check and commit. cheers, --renato PS: Patches are normally sent to llvm-commit list, unless they require a lot of discussion. On 15 January 2013 14:52, Manish Verma <manish.avtaar at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Transform/LoopStrengthReduction/post-inc-icmpzero.ll was failing for > clang-native-arm-cortex-a9 build-bot configuration.

Hi Renato, Thanks! I will make sure the patches are posted to the correct mailing list. Manish On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Renato Golin Linaro < renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Manish, > > Thanks for the patch, I'll check and commit. > > cheers, > --renato > > PS: Patches are normally sent to llvm-commit list, unless they require a > lot of

I had posted something in the code review but Chris suggested doing it here instead, which makes sense. Also I have to remember that the discussion is specifically about spelling variables, not changing any other spelling conventions. Looking at names of "variables" there's reasonable support for making them visually more distinct from other kinds of names. Regarding making

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Nitish Srivastava via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I am trying to locate the passes run by clang/opt when it is passed the option -O3. Can someone point me where to look at? Eventually, I want to

Is it possible to not make it 'Target*'? I'm spending a lot of time moving TargetData out, would hate to have to do it again at some point in the future for TargetVectorData. :) > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Nadav Rotem > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 1:23 PM > To: Eric

> Regarding TLI. So, DAGCombine, CodeGenPrepare, LoopReduce all use the TLI > interface which can answer questions such as "is this operation supported ?" > or "is this type legal". This is a subset of what we need in a vectorized. > We can discuss other requirements that the vectorizer may have after we > finish with the first phase. I suspect that we may

The IR after LSR is: *** IR Dump After Loop Strength Reduction *** ; Preheader: entry: tail call void @fill_array(i32* getelementptr inbounds ([10 x i32], [10 x i32]* @buffer, i32 0, i32 0)) #2 br label %while.body ; Loop: while.body: ; preds = %while.body, %entry %lsr.iv = phi i32 [ %lsr.iv.next, %while.body ], [ 0, %entry ] %uglygep = getelementptr

On Oct 5, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > Nadav, > >>> Possibly, though I think TargetData should still be able to get you >>> what you want. >> >> >> TargetData does not have enough information for vectorization. For example, we need to ask the target if it has efficient "cos4" implementation or the

Dear all, Hi! Recently, I try to combine the passes SeparateConstOffsetFromGEP and LoopStrengthReduction to transform the multiplication in the lowered GEP IRs into addition. However, it seems LoopStrengthReduction is unable to remove all the multiplications for the element offset calculation. My test code is shown below and thanks a lot in advance for your time and suggestion!

I am attempting to implement a minor loop strength reduction optimization for targets that support compare and jump fusion, specifically TTI::canMacroFuseCmp(). My approach might be wrong; however, I am soliciting the idea for feedback, so that I can implement this correctly. My plan is to add a Supplemental LSR formula to LoopStrengthReduce.cpp that optimizes the following case, but perhaps