similar to: [LLVMdev] Construction of SCEVAddRecExpr

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:

Hi Preston, On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com> wrote: > > which produces > > %arrayidx24 = getelementptr inbounds [100 x [100 x i64]]* %A, i64 > %arrayidx21.sum, i64 %add1411, i64 %add > store i64 0, i64* %arrayidx24, align 8 > {{{(5 + ((3 + %n) * %n)),+,(2 * %n * %n)}<%for.cond1.preheader>,+,(4 *

Is there any chance of replacing/extending the GEP instruction? As noted in the GEP FAQ, GEPs don't support variable-length arrays; when the front ends have to support VLAs, they linearize the subscript expressions, throwing away information. The FAQ suggests that folks interested in writing an analysis that understands array indices (I'm thinking of dependence analysis) should be

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 Sebastian, Recently, I found the "Polly - Calculate dependences" pass would lead to significant compile-time overhead when compiling some loop-intensive source code. Tobias told me you found similar problem as follows: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14240 My evaluation shows that "Polly - Calculate dependences" pass consumes 96.4% of total compile-time overhead

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

Hi, I wonder how many of you are familiar with scalar evolution pass. I met a problem regarding to the SCEVAddRecExpr. Say for the code: const int N = 100; int a[N]; for(int i=0;i<N;i++) a[i] = 0; For the access of a[i], the pass will transform this a[i] to a SCEVAddRecExpr <@a, +, sizeof(int)><BB_Name>, which means the access of the array `a' starts from the address `a' and

> On Jun 10, 2015, at 11:44 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > >> Base is treated as unsigned so 0xff…ff + 1 would be 0x100…00 > > This is the part I was missing, thanks for pointing out the FAQ. So > the infinitely precise address computed by a GEP is > > zext(Base) + sext(Idx0) + sext(Idx1) … ? Yes, that is the way I read it.

Hello all, I’m pretty new to LLVM. I'm writing a pass for loop optimization. I clone and rearrange loops, setting the cloned loop as the original loop’s parent. This can be done multiple times, until there is no more work to do. The trouble is, after the first time I do this, the cloned loop's SCEVs become unknown types when they should be AddRecExpr. If I re-run the whole pass on the

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 >

> On Jun 11, 2015, at 12:48 AM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com <mailto:anemet at apple.com>> wrote: >> >>> On Jun 10, 2015, at 11:44 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Base is treated as unsigned so

> On Jun 10, 2015, at 6:17 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > I'm not sure if inbounds can be used to prove <nuw>. If an object > %OBJ is allocated at address -1 then "gep inbounds %OBJ 1" is not > poison, but the underlying computation unsigned-overflows. I think that this should yield poison per langref because the signed

Hi all, Suppose in a CFG bb1 has two succesor bb3 and bb4, and bb3 has two predecessor bb1 and bb2. Now how can I insert a basic block between bb1 and bb3 that at the edge bb1-->bb3 . In general how can I insert a basic block on an edge? Regards, Chayan

Hi, I have tried to use SplitEdge function, but failed. Actually the third parameter is a variable of type Pass and it need to be non-null. But I could not figure out how to use it. Please help me out. Regards, Chayan On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Chayan Sarkar wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Suppose in a CFG bb1 has two

Hello, I have two for loops (one inside the other), that after indvars, looprotate, etc. (the important here is the loop rotate), is similar to this (I've stripped the real operations): define i32 @f() nounwind { entry: br label %bb1 bb1: ; preds = %bb3, %bb1, %entry %i.0.reg2mem.0.ph = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %i.0.reg2mem.0.ph, %bb1 ], [ %indvar.next9, %bb3 ] ;

Hi All, Still I could not figure out how to use Pass* while calling SplitEdge() function. Can anyone provide me some example? Regards, Chayan On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Chayan Sarkar wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I have tried to use SplitEdge function, but failed. Actually the third >> parameter is a variable of

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

I want to do the following: suppose the program structure: bb / \ bb1 bb2 \ / bb3