similar to: [LLVMdev] How to use ConstantFoldConstantExpression?

I forgot to mention, that I use LLVM release 2.8, I did not try it with the latest revision, but I expect that I am rather doing something wrong than using non-implemented functions. On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:09:57 +0100, ihusar <ihusar at fit.vutbr.cz> wrote: > Hello, > > i need to fold constants, i found that a function ConstantFoldConstantExpression could be used, > however

Adam, I just fixed this issue a few days ago. A version from the trunk should work for you. Cheers, Nadav -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of ihusar Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 15:52 To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] How to use ConstantFoldConstantExpression? I forgot to mention, that I use

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Rackover, Zvi <zvi.rackover at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Sanjay, > > > > I agree we should also discuss **if** this canonicalization is beneficial. > > For starters, do we have a concrete case where we would benefit from > canonicalizing shuffles <-> truncates in LLVM IR? > > IMO, we should not count benefits for codegen

The instcombine pass cleans up a lot. Any idea why there are still shufflevector, insertelement, *and* bitcast (!!) etc. instructions left? The original loop is so clean, a textbook example I'd say. There is no need to shuffle anything.At least I don't see it. Frank vector.ph: ; preds = %L5 %broadcast.splatinsert1 = insertelement <4 x

The following IR implements the following nested loop: for (int i = start ; i < end ; ++i ) for (int p = 0 ; p < 4 ; ++p ) a[i*4+p] = b[i*4+p] + c[i*4+p]; define void @main(i64 %arg0, i64 %arg1, i1 %arg2, i64 %arg3, float* noalias %arg4, float* noalias %arg5, float* noalias %arg6) { entrypoint: br i1 %arg2, label %L0, label %L1 L0:

The loop vectorizer relies on cleanup passes to be run after it: from Transforms/IPO/PassManagerBuilder.cpp: // Add the various vectorization passes and relevant cleanup passes for // them since we are no longer in the middle of the main scalar pipeline. MPM.add(createLoopVectorizePass(DisableUnrollLoops)); MPM.add(createInstructionCombiningPass());

This snippet of IR is interesting: %sub.ptr.div.iS37_D = sdiv <2 x i64> %sub.ptr.sub.iS36_D, <i64 24, i64 24> %cmp10S38_D = icmp ugt <2 x i64> %sub.ptr.div.iS37_D, %splatInsMapS1_D.splat %zextS39_D = sext <2 x i1> %cmp10S38_D to <2 x i64> %BCS39_D = bitcast <2 x i64> %zextS39_D to i128 %mskS39_D = icmp ne i128 %BCS39_D, 0 br i1 %mskS39_D,

Hi, I am trying to understand LLVM vectorization implementation and was looking into both loop and SLP vectorization. test case 1: *int foo(int *a) {int sum = 0,i;for(i=0; i<16; i++) sum += a[i];return sum;}* This code is vectorized by loop vectorizer where we calculate scalar loop cost as 4 and vector loop cost as 2. Since vector loop cost is less and above reduction is legal to

------------------------------------ IR ------------------------------------------------------------------ if.then.i.i.i.i.i.i: ; preds = %if.then4 %S25_D = zext <2 x i32> %splatLDS17_D.splat to <2 x i64> %umul_with_overflow.i.iS26_D = shl <2 x i64> %S25_D, <i64 3, i64 3> %extumul_with_overflow.i.iS26_D = extractelement <2 x i64>

On 07/24/2015 03:42 AM, Benjamin Kramer wrote: >> On 24.07.2015, at 08:06, zhi chen <zchenhn at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It seems that that it's hard to vectorize int64 in LLVM. For example, LLVM 3.4 generates very complicated code for the following IR. I am running on a Haswell processor. Is it because there is no alternative AVX/2 instructions for int64? The same thing

Hi Nadav, Thanks for the quick reply !! Ok, so as of now we are lacking capability to handle flat large reductions. I did go through function vectorizeChainsInBlock() (line number 2862). In this function, we try to vectorize if we have phi nodes in the IR (several if's check for phi nodes) i.e we try to construct tree that starts at chains. Any pointers on how to join multiple trees? I

Hi, Following is excerpted from dynamic-vector-gep.ll. The resulting "extractelement" seems to always return 0.0f regardless the value idx1 and idx2 is holding. Am I missing something here or there is something fishy take place? Thanks Shuxin 101 ; CHECK: test6 102 ; CHECK: insertelement <4 x float> zeroinitializer, float 1.000000e+00, i32 %idx1 103 ; CHECK:

Correction in the C snippet: typedef signed short v8i16_t __attribute__((ext_vector_type(8))); v8i16_t foo (v8i16_t a, int n) { return a >> n; } Best regards Saurabh On 17 February 2017 at 16:21, Saurabh Verma <saurabh.verma at movidius.com> wrote: > Hello, > > We are investigating a difference in code generation for vector splat > instructions between llvm-3.9

With LLVM 3.8 the JIT compiler engine generates an AVX512 instruction although I target an 'avx2' CPU (intel Core I7). I just downloaded the most recent 3.8 and still it happens. It happens with this input module: target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128" define void @module_cFFEMJ(i64 %lo, i64 %hi, i64 %myId, i1 %ordered, i64 %start, i32* noalias align 32

Thanks Sanjay. Interestingly for me, disable-llvm-optmzns did not make a difference in the way the shift was handled. Does the initial IR generated for you show this difference when the option is passed? Best regards Saurabh On 17 February 2017 at 19:03, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > I think this is caused by a front-end change (cc'ing clang-dev) because >

On 06/23/2016 12:56 PM, Craig Topper wrote: > Can you check what value "getHostCPUName" returned? getHostCPUName() = skylake > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Frank Winter via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > With LLVM 3.8 the JIT compiler engine generates an AVX512 > instruction although I

On 4 February 2013 18:25, Arnold Schwaighofer <aschwaighofer at apple.com>wrote: > For cases where this approach breaks really badly we could consider adding > a specialized api or parameters (like the type of a user/use). But we > should do so only as a last resort and backed by actual code that would > benefit from doing so. > Very sensible, more or less what I had in

Hi Shuxin I think i might have written that test. And yeah, no matter what values you get you’ll get a 0.0. Its probably a bad test case, but i can’t remember if it exposed a bug in this form or not. Since writing it Chandler rewrote SROA anyway so the original bug is long gone. Thanks, Pete On Apr 5, 2013, at 11:57 AM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > >

Hi Arnold, Thanks for your reply. I tried test case as suggested by you. *void foo(int *a, int *sum) {*sum = a[0]+a[1]+a[2]+a[3]+a[4]+a[5]+a[6]+a[7]+a[8]+a[9]+a[10]+a[11]+a[12]+a[13]+a[14]+a[15];}* so that it has a 'store' in its IR. *IR before vectorization :*target datalayout = "e-m:e-p:32:32-f64:32:64-f80:32-n8:16:32-S128" target triple =

The regression for the reported case should be avoided after: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL297232 https://reviews.llvm.org/rL297242 https://reviews.llvm.org/rL297280 It would still be good to understand if the clang change was intentional or if that was a side effect that can be limited. On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > Yes, there is an