similar to: [LLVMdev] Problem with LoopDependenceAnalysis

Hi, I am using LLVM for implementing LoopFission pass. I am using LoopPass. I know that for checking circular dependency in loop I have to use LoopDependenceAnalysis This is what i want to do. for(int i = 0; i< n ; i++){ s1 : a[i] = a[i] + x[i]; s2 : x[i] = x[i+1] + i*2 ; } /**there is no dependence from s2 to s1/ so after distribution(it

Shanmukha Rao wrote: > I am using LLVM for implementing LoopFission pass. > I am using LoopPass. > I know that for checking circular dependency in loop I have to use LoopDependenceAnalysis > > This is what i want to do. >         for(int i = 0; i< n ; i++){ > s1 : a[i] = a[i] + x[i]; > s2 : x[i] = x[i+1] + i*2 ; > } > >

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:57:00 -0700 Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com> wrote: > Shanmukha Rao wrote: > > I am using LLVM for implementing LoopFission pass. > > I am using LoopPass. > > I know that for checking circular dependency in loop I have to use > > LoopDependenceAnalysis > > > > This is what i want to do. > >         for(int i =

Hi, I am trying to implement my own Loop fission transformations in llvm. But to find circular dependency, i think i have to use LoopDependenceAnalysis. I am using ModulePass. In this pass I am getting LoopInfo and Loops. but when I try to use LoopDependenceAnalysis It throws segmentation fault. the example shows what i want to do : for(int i = 0; i< n ; i++){ s1 : a[i]

On 4/27/12 2:05 PM, shanmuk rao wrote: > Hi, > I am using Loop pass ( runOnLoop() function ) > In this function I want to access all the Loops in all the functions > in the current Module > > the LoopInfo Pass only gives the Loops in the function where the > current Loop resides :-( > > Is there any other Pass by which I can access the Loops in others > functions

Hello, I found that LDA implemented on a function pass is much more useful than LDA based on a loop pass. In addition, I want to have an analysis result for the outer loops also, even if it would be a very conservative one. Can I commit my modified version of LDA? If you think it is worth to keep current LDA, what about adding a LDA based on function pass to the repository with some other name

Hi, I am using Loop pass ( runOnLoop() function ) In this function I want to access all the Loops in all the functions in the current Module the LoopInfo Pass only gives the Loops in the function where the current Loop resides :-( Is there any other Pass by which I can access the Loops in others functions as well ? ...... Regards, Shanmukha Rao -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

Hi all, I've sent it as a reply to another thread, but it was ill placed. Anyway, sorry about the duplication, but here it goes. I've been looking into the loop passes and noticed we do alias analysis and scalar evolution only, trying to clean up the loop as far as possible. I suppose that, if we were to define SCCs, split them into groups and re-arranging into multiple loops, we would

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org> wrote: > > I believe that would be a FunctionPass and registered in the > LoopDependencyAnalysis "runOnLoop()", so it can run when such pass is > called by the PassManager. Or should it be a completely separate pass > (VectorizationPass?) so we can control it from a separate command-line >

Hello. I experience a problem when I try to run LLVM tests on the ARM "Beagle" board with Debian Lenny installed on it. When I execute "make check", I get the following output: llvm[0]: Running test suite make[1]: Entering directory `/mnt/markhor/llvm/nativeBuild/test' Making a new site.exp file... ( ulimit -t 600 ; ulimit -d 512000 ; ulimit -m 512000 ; ulimit -v 512000

Hello. I experience a problem when I try to run LLVM tests on the ARM "Beagle" board with Debian Lenny installed on it. When I execute "make check", I get the following output: llvm[0]: Running test suite make[1]: Entering directory `/mnt/markhor/llvm/nativeBuild/test' Making a new site.exp file... ( ulimit -t 600 ; ulimit -d 512000 ; ulimit -m 512000 ; ulimit -v 512000

Hi,   I developed a Loop Interchange pass. Please take a look. I have not incorporate data dependence analysis check. I can insert it when the LoopDependenceAnalysis is available.   Thank you Satya -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100713/654d5fd5/attachment.html> --------------

Hi Sanjoy, Reading through LoopDependenceAnalysis::analyseStrongSIV(), I noticed one problem and one confusion. My confusion related to your naming of the two instructions as A and B. It's consistent all through LoopDependenceAnalysis. I'd prefer something like source and destination, so I can keep track of which is which. It didn't matter so much when you were simply proving or

Gents, I spent some time reading over Sanjoy's patch for LoopDependenceAnalysis. Unfortunately, an early version of these notes escaped; this is the complete review. First off, I agree with his choice to implement the SIV tests. For scientific Fortran, the SIV (and the simpler ZIV) tests cover about 85% of the cases in practice. For C and C++, I expect the percentage will be much higher.

Hi Satya, On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Satya Jandhayala < satya_jandhayala at yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I developed a Loop Interchange pass. Please take a look. > I have not incorporate data dependence analysis check. I can insert it when > the LoopDependenceAnalysis is available. > Have you tried using include/llvm/Analysis/LoopDependenceAnalysis.h ? Please

Hi Hal, Preston! Sorry for the delay! Got busy with some offline work. I've worked on my previous code to calculate direction and distance vectors whenever possible (strong SIV, basically). I think the current code is much clearer and would like your opinions on it. I have attached the patch and also pushed to the github repo I mentioned [1]. Thanks! [1]

Hi Sanjoy & Hal, Looking at LoopDependenceAnalysis::analyzeZIV ... I don't understand much about SCEV, but the code seems inadequate. Consider these three examples: int a = ...; // we can't be sure of the relationship between a and b int b = ...; // perhaps they are parameters, or the result of I/O for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) { v[a][i] = ...; v[a + 1][i] = ...; } for (int i

--- On Tue, 7/13/10, Satya Jandhayala <satya_jandhayala at yahoo.com> wrote: From: Satya Jandhayala <satya_jandhayala at yahoo.com> Subject: LoopInterchange Pass To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Date: Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 12:06 PM Hi,   I developed a Loop Interchange pass. Please take a look. I have not incorporate data dependence analysis check. I can insert it when the

Hi Sanjoy, I reworked the code for analyzeStrongSIV to fix a couple of mistakes, plus squeeze all the advantage possible from the symbolic manipulation provided by the SCEVs. It's sketched out here: https://sites.google.com/site/parallelizationforllvm/strong-siv-test Does it makes sense to you? Thanks, Preston On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at

Hi Preston, Thanks for the feedback! > In LoopDependenceAnalysis::AnalyzePair, what's going to happen if we > have something like this > > for (i = 0; i < n; i++) > for (j = 0; j < n; j++) > A[i][j]++; > > versus > > for (i = 0; i < n; i++) > for (j = 0; j < n; j++) > A[j][i]++; I think this can be fixed by ordering the subscripts