similar to: [LLVMdev] Aliasing Question

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Jeremy Salwen <jeremysalwen at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hey Daniel, >> >> Thanks again for the help. I'm still a bit confused about the interface to >> the alias analysis. It seems like we are talking about different >> interfaces. >

Hi Daniel, Sorry for taking so long to respond. I spoke with a colleague more familiar with llvm who thought he could clear up my confusion, but we both came out of the conversation confused. I will try my best to explain the ambiguity. In an DAG, alias queries would be completely unambiguous. Every instruction would only be executed once, and every SSA value really would have a single static

Hello all, I've read the documentation on alias analysis, and I think I understand it literally, but I just want to be sure, because it seems a bit strange. As it says on this web page <http://llvm.org/docs/AliasAnalysis.html>, The MayAlias response is used whenever the two pointers might refer to the > same object. > > The PartialAlias response is used when the two memory

Hi Hal, Thank you for your email, that makes a lot of sense to me. I am working on some tools to use memory profiling to speculatively replace memory loads and stores with value forwarding in hardware implementations. I'd like to compare the profiled data to static alias analysis, so it would be super useful if there was a way to answer the questions about aliasing across backedges that

Hey Daniel, Thanks again for the help. I'm still a bit confused about the interface to the alias analysis. It seems like we are talking about different interfaces. Has it changed from what the documentation says? As far as I can tell, the documentation takes a specific Value*, and no information about which dynamic execution it is talking about. When you say "Right. It's a

Hi again! Replying in chronological order: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 6:51 PM Shuai Wang <wangshuai901 at gmail.com > <mailto:wangshuai901 at gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hey Matt, > > That's awesome. Thank you very much for all the information and > clarification! Just a few follow up questions. Could you kindly shed > some lights on it? Thank

Thanks Daniel! I think you've cleared up some of my misconceptions, but I still am a bit confused about some of the corner cases. Suppose we had something like this std::vector<int> A(100); > int* x,y; > x=&A[0]; > for(int i=0; i<100; i++) { > y=&A[i]; > *y=*x; > x=&A[i+1]; > } > Would the load and store instructions be MustAlias? I

Hi! On 7/10/2020 07:17, Shuai Wang wrote: > Hello! > > Thank you very much! Yes, that makes a lot of sense to me. However, just > want to point out two things that are still unclear: > > 1. The output contains a alias set of only one element, for instance: > "must alias, Mod       Pointers: (i32* %y, LocationSize::precise(4))" > > This one really confused

Updated testcases to have MayAlias/note issues as FIXME. On Tue Jan 20 2015 at 3:54:10 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> > > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > > Cc: "Jiangning Liu" <Jiangning.Liu at arm.com>, "George

So, I can make all these testcases work, but it's a little tricky (it involves tracking some things, like GEP byte range, and then checking bases and using getObjectSize, much like BasicAA does). Because i really don't want to put that much "not well tested" code in a bugfix, and honestly, i'm not sure we will catch any cases here that BasicAA does not, i've attached a

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Reid Kleckner <reid.kleckner at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: >> To fix that and compile C++ correctly while aggressively >> devirtualizing it, we would need to apply "noalias" to the result of >> placement-new in all cases, even when placement-new

Right now, I don't see any way to declare that a pointer value within a function does not alias any pointer not based on it. Basically, I would like to be able to apply "noalias" to an instruction/virtual reg the same way that noalias is applied to function arguments. A few weeks ago when discussing devirtualization possibilities in C++, it turned out that while you can assume that

Greetings all, I'm working on refactoring the alias analysis layers to remove the usage of analysis groups and make the logic sharable between old and new pass managers, and I have a couple of questions below. As background, the overall plan that I've discussed with Hal and a few others previously is as follows: - Create an AliasAnalysisManager which is provided by a normal analysis

On Wed Jan 21 2015 at 12:30:50 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> > > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > > Cc: "Jiangning Liu" <Jiangning.Liu at arm.com>, "George Burgess IV" < > george.burgess.iv at gmail.com>,

I have a global 2-D array ARRAY[N][M] and I am accessing it inside the for loop like this: for (i...) for (j ...) ARRAY[i][j] ... So nothing really weird is happening. If I look at the generated IR, it is also fairly straight forward. @ARRAY0 = dso_local global [32 x [32 x i32]] zeroinitializer, section ".slow_mem", align 32, !dbg !84 ... %45 = getelementptr inbounds [32 x [32 x

On 10/21/2014 01:44 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: >> On Oct 21, 2014, at 11:46 AM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: >> >> Thank you for the explanation, I think I misunderstood your solution >> initially. Is it accurate to say: by making the definition of the >> source pointer of an !invariant load control (or data) dependent on >> some

> Should we be added an edge from the inttoptr to all other pointer values? Is there a better way? We can add a special "Unknown" StratifiedAttr and query it before anything else, i.e: // in CFLAliasAnalysis::query, as the first potential return if (AttrsA[AttrUnknown] || AttrsB[AttrUnknown]) return MayAlias; The only *potential* issue with this approach would be that in the

Hi Hal, In that case what is the best way to query whether there is a loop carried dependence between B[j] and A[j] at i-loop level? We were operating under the assumption of 'conservatively correct' behavior of alias analysis in the function scope? Thanks, Pankaj From: Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 11:50 AM To: Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at

Yes, I'm not arguing that there is a dependence, just that it's not a clobber dependence. The case of a load is already considered earlier in that function and with isLoad == false it returns MemDepResult::getDef(). My question is: why should a read-only call (which yields AliasAnalysis::Ref and is handled in this code fragment) be any different from e.g. a load. Isn't a read-only

My understanding is that alias analysis returns results in the function scope, not in loop scope. Since both the phis access both global arrays, that should results in BasicAA conservatively returning MayAlias. I debugged this a little bit and narrowed it down to the section of the code in BasicAAResult::aliasPHI() which has this comment- // Analyse the PHIs' inputs under the assumption