similar to: [LLVMdev] Question about IndVarSimplify

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Sorin Baltateanu <baltateanu.sorin at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi guys, > > I am trying to use the indvars pass, but i don't see any changes in the IL > representation. > > For this simple function > > void init_array(int k) > { >     int A[20]; >     for (int i=2; i<10; i++) >         A[i] = 0; > } > > i run

On Jan 29, 2013, at 12:51 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > > # ignore assumed dependences. > for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { > tmp1 = A[3i+1]; > tmp2 = A[3i+2]; > tmp3 = tmp1 + tmp2; > A[3i] = tmp3; > } > > Now I apply for whatever reason a partial reg2mem transformation. > > float tmp3[1]; > > # ignore assumed

On 01/29/2013 07:58 PM, Nadav Rotem wrote: > > On Jan 29, 2013, at 12:51 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es > <mailto:tobias at grosser.es>> wrote: > >> >> # ignore assumed dependences. >> for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { >> tmp1 = A[3i+1]; >> tmp2 = A[3i+2]; >> tmp3 = tmp1 + tmp2; >> A[3i] = tmp3; >> } >>

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

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

Hi, Mehdi, For example, I have this very simple source code: void foo( int n, int array_x[]) { for (int i=0; i < n; i++) array_x[i] = i; } After I use "clang -emit-llvm -o bc_from_clang.bc -c try.cc", I get bc_from_clang.bc. With my code (using LLVM IRbuilder API), I get bc_from_api.bc. Attachment please find thse two files. I also past the IR here.

Thanks for your point that out. I just add DataLayout in my code such as "mod->setDataLayout("e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128");", still no luck. I'm really confused about this. Do I need to add more passes before -loop-unroll? On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Aug 22, 2015, at 7:27 AM, Xiangyang

Hi , The following loop fails to be vectorized since the load c[i] is casted as i64 and the store c[i] is double. The loop access analysis gives up since they are in different types. Since these two memory operations are in the same size, I believe the loop access analysis should return forward dependence and thus the loop can be vectorized. Any comments? Thanks, Jin #define N 1000 double

Hi, Is the -indvars pass functional? I've done some small test to check it, but this fails to canonicalize: > int *x; > int *y; > int i; > ... > for (i = 1; i < 100; i+=2) { > x[i] = y[i] + 3; > } The IR produced after -indvars: > br label %for.cond > > for.cond: ; preds = %for.inc, %entry > %indvars.iv =

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > To: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 1:58:02 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Improving loop vectorizer support for loops > with a volatile iteration variable > ----- Original Message ----- > >

I am attempting to get indexing code generation working with my backend. However, it seems that the addresses being calculated is being multiplied by the width of the data type. define void @ test_input_index_constant_int(i32 addrspace(11)* %input, i32 addrspace(11)* %result) { entry: %input.addr = alloca i32 addrspace(11)* ; <i32 addrspace(11)**> [#uses=2]

Hi, I often find myself staring at IR and wanting to look at the C source code it corresponds to. To do so, I look up the debug identifier for the given IR line, scroll to the bottom of the IR file to find the debug identifier, look at the debug location (source and column), and then look at the source file. Too many steps. What would be great is a tool that took two files, i.e., a .c file and a

On 2/25/2013 2:08 PM, Redmond, Paul wrote: > > I've been looking through past threads looking for an answer to why the loop metadata is attached to the loop latch branch. What is the reason for putting the metadata inside the loop rather than outside (for example on the branch into the loop header.) Latch is a branch to the header. What branch in particular do you have in mind? Loop

Hi, I just tried llvm-3.8 (LLVM SVN Repository). With this version, -fno-rtti can help me to compile my code and -irce can help me to do a better job for loop unrolling. However, I still have one question. If I use Clang to compile a piece of c++ code to .bc and then use 'opt -loop-rotate -loop-unroll -irce', I can get what I want. I mean, there is no conditional branch at the end of each

Hi, I've been looking through past threads looking for an answer to why the loop metadata is attached to the loop latch branch. What is the reason for putting the metadata inside the loop rather than outside (for example on the branch into the loop header.) Note that I'm asking about llvm.loop.parallel not llvm.mem.parallel_loop_access which obviously must be inside the loop. It seems

Hi Gerolf, I think we have several (perhaps separable) issues here: 1. Do we have a canonical form for loops, preserved through the optimizer, that allows naturally-constructed loop nests to remain separable? 2. Do we forbid non-lowering transformations that turn vectorizable loops into non-vectorizable loops? 3. How do we detect cases where transformations cause a negative answer to either

Hi, all I found in some cases the int variable get promoted to i64, although I think it should i32. I use the online demo (http://llvm.org/demo). And below is the test case. ------------- test case ------------- int test(int x[], int y[], int n) { int i = 0; int sum = 0; for ( ; i < n; i++) { sum += x[i] * y[i]; } return sum; } ------------------------------------- No

Hello, How can I compute the functions on the loop iterators used as array indices?  For example: for i = 0, N       for j = 0, M             A[2*i + j - 10] = ...  Can I obtain that this instruction A[2*i + j - 10]= .. always accesses memory using a function       f(i,j)   =   2*i + j - 10 + base_address_of_A If I run the scalar evolution pass on this code I obtain: %arrayidx =

It seems there is no -enable-iv-rewrite now in llvm3.2, and it suggest -enable-load-pre, but it still does not work. So, how to active the transform? -- View this message in context: http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/indvars-issues-tp4646p58587.html Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > Can you explain why you chose the approach of using a new pass? > I pictured removing LegalizeDAG's type legalization code would > mostly consist of finding all the places that use TLI.getTypeAction > and just deleting code for handling its Expand and Promote. Are you > anticipating something more