similar to: [LLVMdev] Scalar Evolution and Loop Trip Count.

Hi I have this program in which fooBuf can only take on NULL or the address of local_fooBuf, and fooBuf and local_fooBuf have scope of the foo function. Therefore there is no way for the fooPtr argument to alias with fooBuf. However, LLVM basicaa and globalsmodref-aa say the 2 pointers may alias. I am thinking whether i should implement a limited form of point-to alias on the fooBuf pointer in

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, 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:

Sent from my iPhone... On Jun 25, 2013, at 8:14 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> >> >> >> On Jun 24, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Indvars should ideally preserve NSW flags whenever possible. However, >> we don't want to

> > > 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()

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, 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.

Hello, I'm using LLVM to reason about memory safety of programs. One goal is to prove that certain array accesses are always safe. Currently, one of these proofs fails because of a missing no-signed-wrap (nsw) flag. I found that it has been "lost" during the SimplifyIndVar pass. Here's the example: int foo(int a[]) { int sum = 0; for (int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i)

----- Original Message ----- > > > > On Jun 24, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov > wrote: > > > > > Indvars should ideally preserve NSW flags whenever possible. However, > we don't want to rely on SCEV to preserve them. SCEV expressions are > implicitly reassociated and uniqued in a flow-insensitive universe > independent of the

Hi, I'm using pass ScalarEvolution to analyze the loop trip count on my application. And I found a possible bug in the code, that is in function SCEVAddRecExpr::getNumIterationsInRange(), Line 2905: 2904 // The exit value should be (End+A)/A. 2905 APInt ExitVal = (End + A).udiv(A); 2906 ConstantInt *ExitValue = ConstantInt::get(ExitVal); The divide should be sdiv, right?

On 07/04/2013 01:39 PM, Stéphane Letz wrote: > Hi, > > Our DSL can generate C or directly generate LLVM IR. With LLVM 3.3, we can vectorize the C produced code using clang with -O3, or clang with -O1 then opt -O3 -vectorize-loops. But the same program generating LLVM IR version cannot be vectorized with opt -O3 -vectorize-loops. So our guess is that our generated LLVM IR lacks some

Hi folks, I'm trying to analyse this piece of IR: for.body: ; preds = %for.body, %entry %indvars.iv = phi i64 [ 0, %entry ], [ %indvars.iv.next, %for.body ] %0 = shl nsw i64 %indvars.iv, 1 %arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds i32* %b, i64 %0 %1 = load i32* %arrayidx, align 4, !tbaa !1 %add = add nsw i32 %1, %I %arrayidx3 = getelementptr

Hi, Our DSL can generate C or directly generate LLVM IR. With LLVM 3.3, we can vectorize the C produced code using clang with -O3, or clang with -O1 then opt -O3 -vectorize-loops. But the same program generating LLVM IR version cannot be vectorized with opt -O3 -vectorize-loops. So our guess is that our generated LLVM IR lacks some informations that are needed by the vectorization passes to

Hi Ashutosh, Have you been following the recent Loop Access Analysis work? LAA was split out from the Loop Vectorizer that have been performing the kind of loop versioning that you describe. The main reason was to be able to share this functionality with other passes. Loop Access Analysis is an analysis pass that computes basic memory dependence and the runtime checks. The versioning decision

I like to propose a new loop multi versioning optimization for LICM. For now I kept this for LICM only, but it can be used in multiple places. The main motivation is to allow optimizations stuck because of memory alias dependencies. Most of the time when alias analysis is unsure about memory access and it says may-alias. This un surety from alias analysis restrict some of the memory based

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

On 21 October 2013 17:29, Arnold Schwaighofer <aschwaighofer at apple.com>wrote: > I don’t think that recognizing this as a reduction is going to get you > far. A reduction is beneficial if the value reduced is only truly needed > outside of a loop. > This is not the case here (we are storing/loading from the pointer). > Hi Arnold, Nadav, Let me resurrect this discussion a

Hello Micah, I first apologize for the mail length, but I think that using an example would be better to clarify the case and the objections. > [Micah Villmow] In the case of OpenCL, you can't correctly use the standard C calling convention and still be OpenCL compliant, the C calling convention is too permissive. The second you use OpenCL, you are using an OpenCL specific calling

----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > Hello, > > I'm using LLVM to reason about memory safety of programs. One goal is > to prove that certain array accesses are always safe. > > Currently, one of these proofs fails because of a missing > no-signed-wrap (nsw) flag. I found that it has been "lost" during > the SimplifyIndVar

The loop vectorized does not estimate the cost of vectorization by looking at the IR you list below. It does not vectorize and then run the CostAnalysis pass. It estimates the cost itself before it even performs the vectorization. The way it works is that it looks at all the scalar instructions and asks: What is the cost if I execute the scalar instruction as a vector instruction. Therefore, it