similar to: [LLVMdev] About Scalar Evolution Pass and SCEVAddRecExpr

Hi, You may try function "getSCEVAtScope" of the ScalarEvolution analysis: /// getSCEVAtScope - Return a SCEV expression for the specified value /// at the specified scope in the program. The L value specifies a loop /// nest to evaluate the expression at, where null is the top-level or a /// specified loop is immediately inside of the loop. /// /// This method can be used to compute

I've been doing some digging in this area (scev, wrapping arithmetic), learning as much as I can, and have reached a point where I'm fairly confused about the semantics of nuw in scalar evolution expressions. Consider the following program: define void @foo(i32 %begin) { entry: br label %loop loop: %idx = phi i32 [ %begin, %entry ], [ %idx.dec, %loop ] %idx.dec = sub nuw i32

Hi Nick, Thanks for looking into it. I have tried that as well but it didn't worked. "AddExpr->getOperand(0))" node is: " (4 * (sext i32 {2,+,2}<%for.body4> to i64))<nsw>" When I cast this to "SCEVAddRecExpr" it returns NULL. Regards, Ashutosh -----Original Message----- From: Nick Lewycky [mailto:nicholas at mxc.ca] Sent: Thursday, March 19,

Hi, I'm trying to cast one of the SCEV node to "SCEVAddRecExpr". Every time cast return NULL, and I'm unable to do this. SCEV Node: ((4 * (sext i32 {2,+,2}<%for.body4> to i64))<nsw> + %var)<nsw> Casting: const SCEVAddRecExpr *AR = dyn_cast<SCEVAddRecExpr>(SCEVNode); 'var' is of type float pointer (float*). Without 'sext' it works, but

Yes, I can get "SCEVAddRecExpr" from operands of "(sext i32 {2,+,2}<%for.body4> to i64)". So whenever SCEV cast to "SCEVAddRecExpr" fails, we have drill down for such patterns ? Is that the right way ? Regards, Ashutosh -----Original Message----- From: Nick Lewycky [mailto:nicholas at mxc.ca] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 1:02 PM To: Nema, Ashutosh Cc:

Sorry typo in test case, Please ignore previous mail. Consider below case: for (j=1; j < itr; j++) { - - - - for (i=1; i < itr; i++) { { temp= var[i << 1]; - - - - - } } In the above example, we are unable to get "SCEVAddRecExpr" for "var[i << 1]" Its "SCEVAddRecExpr" is computable in *Outer Loop* I

hi all, i have SCEVAddRec {{(32 + @edge.8265),+,32}<Loop0>,+,4}<Loop1> where Loop0 and Loop1 are brothers (loops at the same level of the loopnest), and Loop0 have a computable backedge taken count. when i call getSCEVAtScope({{(32 + @edge.8265),+,32}<Loop0>,+,4}<Loop1> , Loop1), it just give me a {{(32 + @edge.8265),+,32}<Loop0>,+,4}<Loop1>, instead of

Forwarding to the dev list, in case others ran into similar issues and/or have input on this topic. Bardia Mahjour ----- Forwarded by Bardia Mahjour/Toronto/IBM on 2020/03/30 02:25 PM ----- From: Bardia Mahjour/Toronto/IBM To: listmail at philipreames.com Cc: "Michael Kruse" <llvm at meinersbur.de> Date: 2020/03/26 11:47 AM Subject: Scalar Evolution Expressions Involving Sibling

Hi, Seems pass scalar-evolution+indvars fail to get the loop trip count of the following case: int foo(int x, int y, int lam[256], int alp[256]) { int i; int z = y; for (i = 255; i >= 0; i--) { z += x; lam[i] = alp[i]; } return z; } The final optimized ll code is : define i32 @foo(i32 %x, i32 %y, i32* %lam, i32* %alp) nounwind { entry: br label %bb bb:

Hello, I'm studying how the SCEV analyzis works and how to use it and I could not create an example where the SCEV analyzis identifies an expression as "SCEVAddRecExpr". Aren't the expressions below the kind of pattern that should be represented as a "AddRecExpr" ? SCEV: (1 + (2 * %3) or SCEV: (%1 + (2 * %3) or SCEV: (%1 + (%2 * %3) In my experiments they are

Thanks Sanjoy. > To be pedantic, "var[i<<1]" is not an add recurrence, but "&var[i << > 1]" is an add recurrence. I'll assume that's that you meant. Yes, I meant the same. > I think that is because in C, multiplication is nsw but left shift is > not and so "i << 1" can legitimately sign-overflow but i * 2 cannot >

Hi, I'm also working on a tool in which I'd like to know the instruction PCs. So for now, the intrinsic is still not supported on x86? -Ang -- View this message in context: http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/State-of-llvm-pcmarker-Intrinsic-tp31677p46619.html Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Hi Andrew, So do you know on which architectures is this intrinsic implemented? Thank you! -Ang -- View this message in context: http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/State-of-llvm-pcmarker-Intrinsic-tp31677p46621.html Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

> I'm not following your example.  If you have two sibling loops with the same parent, one will frequently, but not always dominate the other.  Can you give a specific example of when forming a recurrence between two siblings (without one dominating the other), is useful? The situation can happen with guarded loops or with a user guard like below: if (c) { for (i = 0; i < n; i++)

Hi, Scalar evolution seems to be wrapping around the trip count in the following loop. void add (int *restrict a, int *restrict b, int *restrict c) { char i; for (i = 0; i < 255; i++) a[i] = b[i] + c[i]; } When I run scalar evolution on the bit code, I get a backedge-taken count which is obviously wrong. $> cat loop.ll ; Function Attrs: nounwind define void @add(i32* noalias

Hi Jimmy, It's good to know that the problem is not specific to the case I ran into. May be you can provide your example as well, since Philip seems to be interested in some specific examples. If the assertion in getAddrExpr is deemed necessary, then I think a condition check would be the next best solution as it helps client code guard against such cases and make alternative arrangements to

Thanks for sharing the known problem. I think to solve the problem properly, we need to fully understand why that assumption about dominance is there and the implications of removing it. It would be good if you could be more specific about your idea of nullptr or SCEV_unknown (eg which function would return those values and when), but returning nullptr from getAddExpr or getSCEVAtScope may be

I am testing vectorization on the following test case: float x[1024], y[1024]; void myloop1() { for (long int k = 0; k < 512; k++) { x[2*k] = x[2*k]+y[k]; } } Vectorization failed due to "unsafe dependent memory operation". I traced the LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp and found the reason is the NoWrapFlag for SCEVAddRecExpr is not set and consequently the

> > > Having the final .ll file doesn't help debug this. If you run opt > -analyze -scalar-evolution on the .ll you pasted, it will correctly > print out the loop trip count. > > I've modified llvm-gcc to remove all the passes after indvars. > > I updated my llvm and now it works. >> > Surely the loop trip count is 256, but the Loop::getTripCount()

Hi Hashim, Scalar evolution determines evolution of scalar in terms of expression chain driving it. Try dumping the detailed log using opt -analyze -scalar-evolution <.ll> -S , and look for LoopDispositions corresponding to different expression which shows variance characteristics of a particular expression w.r.t loop i.e. [computable/variant/invariant]. Thanks On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at