similar to: [LLVMdev] another SCEV surprise

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com> wrote: > When compile the following case and look at the SCEV analysis, I notice that > the first two loops don't have a LoopInvariantBackedgeTakenCount > (surprising) and the last one does (not surprising, except in the context of > the first two examples). > > void p4(int *A, int *B, long

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 02:18:49 -0700 Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Preston Briggs > <preston.briggs at gmail.com> wrote: > > When compile the following case and look at the SCEV analysis, I > > notice that the first two loops don't have a > > LoopInvariantBackedgeTakenCount (surprising) and the last one

I'd like a value, call it Bottom, such that SE->getAddExpr(Bottom, X) => Bottom SE->getMulExpr(Bottom, X,) => Bottom isKnownPredicate(any, Bottom, X) => false etc. I can write code to make NULL work like I want, but it would be simpler if something was already defined. I'm wondering about SCEV::Unknown. The documentation suggests I could perhaps use it for a

On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 18:53:59 -0700 Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com> wrote: > I'd like a value, call it Bottom, such that > > SE->getAddExpr(Bottom, X) => Bottom > SE->getMulExpr(Bottom, X,) => Bottom > isKnownPredicate(any, Bottom, X) => false > etc. > > > I can write code to make NULL work like I want, but it would be > simpler

Hi Preston, I was wondering ... "Bottom" is a bit overloaded as far as terms go. Would SCEVNaN be a better name for this beast? Sameer. > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of Sameer Sahasrabuddhe > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 9:16 AM > To: preston.briggs at gmail.com > Cc: LLVM

I have a pair of SCEVs that appear different to me. However, when I compute the difference, it's not known to be non-zero. src = (sext i32 %n to i64) dst = (sext i32 (1 + %n) to i64) delta = ((sext i32 %n to i64) + (-1 * (sext i32 (1 + %n) to i64))) Is this behavior expected? If I repeat the experiment with 64-bit ints (or unsigned), things work out like I expect. 32-bit

Hi, So SCEV cannot simplify that expression to -1 because of overflow issues (take e.g. src=0x7FFF..). If you compile with 64 bits integers, then the sexts disappear and so SCEV can do the simplification. Depending on what you want to do, you may want to either do not extend src and dst to 64 bits or add a NSW flag to the computations. That will hopefully make SCEV push the sext outside and

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > > On Sep 18, 2012, at 8:21 PM, Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com> > wrote: > > Given the following SCEV, > > *(sext i32 {2,+,1}<nw><%for.body> to i64)* > > > from the following C source, > > *void strong3(int *A, int *B, int n) {* > * for (int i =

Given the following SCEV, *(sext i32 {2,+,1}<nw><%for.body> to i64)* from the following C source, *void strong3(int *A, int *B, int n) {* * for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {* * A[i + 2] = i;* * ...* * }* *}* Since the No-Wrap flag is set on the addrec, can't I safely rewrite it as *{2,+,1}<nw><%for.body>* If I can, why isn't the SCEV package

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > > On Sep 19, 2012, at 2:18 PM, Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Sep 18, 2012, at 8:21 PM, Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com> >> wrote:

On Sep 19, 2012, at 2:18 PM, Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > > On Sep 18, 2012, at 8:21 PM, Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Given the following SCEV, >> >> (sext i32 {2,+,1}<nw><%for.body> to i64) >>

On 11/02/2012 11:02 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> >> To: "preston briggs" <preston.briggs at gmail.com> >> Cc: "Benjamin Kramer" <benny.kra at gmail.com>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> >> Sent: Friday, November

On 11/02/2012 10:21 AM, Preston Briggs wrote: > > My initial guess is that a conservative fix is quick and small (make > sure the underlying pointers are loop invariant, otherwise give up). A > better approach would be to somehow turn code like the example into > array references that can be analyzed. I'll need to think about this and > do some reading. Hi Preston, I looked

On Sep 18, 2012, at 8:21 PM, Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com> wrote: > Given the following SCEV, > > (sext i32 {2,+,1}<nw><%for.body> to i64) > > from the following C source, > > void strong3(int *A, int *B, int n) { > for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) { > A[i + 2] = i; > ... > } > } > > Since the No-Wrap flag is

Here's the current code (abstracted a bit) const Instruction *Src, const Instruction *Dst, // make sure they are loads and stores, then const Value *SrcPtr = getPointerOperand(Src); // hides a little casting, then Src->getPointerOperand const Value *DstPtr = getPointerOperand(Dst); // ditto // see how underlying objects alias, then const GEPOperator *SrcGEP =

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> > To: "preston briggs" <preston.briggs at gmail.com> > Cc: "Benjamin Kramer" <benny.kra at gmail.com>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, November 2, 2012 12:56:53 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev]

Hi, Here is a preliminary (monolithic) version you can comment on. This is still buggy, however, and I'll be testing for and fixing bugs over the next few days. I've used your version of the strong siv test. Thanks! -- Sanjoy Das. http://playingwithpointers.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: patch.diff Type: application/octet-stream

On 02.11.2012, at 15:53, Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Chandler, > > Thanks for writing. > Could you give me some C (or C++) for an illustrative example. > I think I understand your concern, but I'd like to be sure. Hi Preston, The bug report at http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14241 has more details, including a C++ test case. - Ben

When I have to do arithmetic, using APInt, with the component parts of a SCEV *X, I've been using X->getType()->getIntegerBitWidth() to tell me how many bits to allocate in my APInts. Now I've come across a case where the SCEV has a pointer type. How can I find the width of a pointer in bits? Thanks, Preston -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

Erkan, you're right. Sorry about that. Attached is the most recent version. Preston Hi Preston, > I am trying to use DA as well. I used your example and commands that you > wrote in order to get DA information. > However, it does not report any dependence info. > I am wondering whether your local copy differs from the one on the > repository ? > Thanks. > Erkan.