similar to: [LLVMdev] Rotated loop identification

On Feb 4, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Michele Scandale <michele.scandale at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > I'm working on a late IR target dependent optimization on loops. A part of this > optimization requires to derive "by hand" the trip-count expression of a given > loop. In order to handle correctly these cases I need to check if the loop has > an entry guard

Thanks for your reply. Maybe it wasn't so clear, but the optimization I'm writing is target-dependent and so it's declared inside the target backend and is run after the independent optimizer. So I cannot run my pass just after LoopRotate and before InstCombine. I can still use ScalarEvolution, but the instruction combiner can in some cases simplify the entry guard condition. A small

On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:40 AM, Michele Scandale <michele.scandale at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for your reply. > > Maybe it wasn't so clear, but the optimization I'm writing is target-dependent > and so it's declared inside the target backend and is run after the independent > optimizer. So I cannot run my pass just after LoopRotate and before InstCombine. > I

> Thanks for the details. Please add them to a bug report. I will do this. > InstCombine is certainly interfering with our ability to analyze the loop. I think the problem is that ScalarEvolution cannot reason about signed division. This is a general problem independent of your target. At the moment I'm not sure if we can teach ScalarEvolution to reason about this, or if we can defer

On Feb 7, 2013, at 10:53 AM, Michele Scandale <michele.scandale at gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks for the details. Please add them to a bug report. > > I will do this. Thanks. >> InstCombine is certainly interfering with our ability to analyze the loop. I think the problem is that ScalarEvolution cannot reason about signed division. This is a general problem independent of

On 02/08/2013 06:56 AM, Andrew Trick wrote: > There's been talk of adding metata do the branch that terminates the loop latch block. What llvm calls the "latch" is just a unique backward branch to the loop header and not necessarilly even a loop exit. > > I'm not sure how you would interpret that metadata, since the branch exit may be rewritten (just like the loop

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Trick" <atrick at apple.com> > To: "Michele Scandale" <michele.scandale at gmail.com> > Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013 11:56:42 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Rotated loop identification > > > On Feb 7, 2013, at 10:53 AM,

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Trick" <atrick at apple.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Michele Scandale" <michele.scandale at gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, February 8, 2013 1:52:55 PM > Subject: llvm.meta (was Rotated loop

On Feb 7, 2013, at 10:58 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> As long as this is brainstorming time, I actually like the idea of an >> llvm.invariant intrinsic that the optimizers know to ignore. I like >> it for other purposes, but would happen to work for you as a >> temporary workaround. It could take one or two IR values (as >> metadata operands)

On Feb 22, 2013, at 6:28 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Andrew Trick" <atrick at apple.com> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >> Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Michele Scandale" <michele.scandale at gmail.com> >>

Hello to everybody, I'm working on some improvements on trip count computation with ScalarEvolution analysis. Considering the following test ;----------------------------------------------------------------------------; define void @foo(i32 %a, i32 %b, i32 %s) #0 { entry: %cmp = icmp sgt i32 %s, 0 %cmp15 = icmp sgt i32 %a, %b %or.cond = and i1 %cmp, %cmp15 br i1 %or.cond, label

On Oct 1, 2013, at 6:45 AM, Michele Scandale <michele.scandale at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello to everybody, > > I'm working on some improvements on trip count computation with ScalarEvolution > analysis. > Considering the following test > > ;----------------------------------------------------------------------------; > define void @foo(i32 %a, i32 %b, i32 %s) #0

Should have changed the subject line... --- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Sergei Larin > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 12:29 PM > To: 'Tobias Grosser' > Cc: 'llvmdev'

----- Original Message ----- > > On Feb 22, 2013, at 6:28 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Andrew Trick" <atrick at apple.com> > >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > >> Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>,

On Aug 19, 2013, at 8:06 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> >> On Feb 22, 2013, at 6:28 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Andrew Trick" <atrick at apple.com> >>>> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>

On 07/01/2013 09:41 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 1 July 2013 02:02, Chris Matthews <chris.matthews at apple.com> wrote: > >> One thing that LNT is doing to help “smooth” the results for you is by >> presenting the min of the data at a particular revision, which (hopefully) >> is approximating the actual runtime without noise. >> > > That's an

Hi Sebpop, Thanks for your explanation. I noticed that Polly would finally run the SROA pass to transform these load/store instructions into scalar operations. Is it possible to run such a pass before polly-dependence analysis? Star Tan At 2013-08-15 21:12:53,"Sebastian Pop" <sebpop at gmail.com> wrote: >Codeprepare and independent blocks are introducing these loads and

On 1 July 2013 02:02, Chris Matthews <chris.matthews at apple.com> wrote: > One thing that LNT is doing to help “smooth” the results for you is by > presenting the min of the data at a particular revision, which (hopefully) > is approximating the actual runtime without noise. > That's an interesting idea, as you said, if you run multiple times on every revision. On ARM,

Hi Sergei, On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Should have changed the subject line... > > --- > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted > by > The Linux Foundation > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Michele Scandale < michele.scandale at gmail.com> wrote: > On 08/12/2013 02:02 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Michele Scandale < > michele.scandale at gmail.com > > <mailto:michele.scandale at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > On 08/12/2013 12:44 AM, Michele Scandale wrote: > >