similar to: [LLVMdev] Separating loop nests based on profile information?

On 01/07/2015 05:33 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Philip Reames > <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > > I've been playing with approaches to getting better optimization > of loops which contain infrequently executed slow paths. I've > gotten as far as throwing together

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 5:33 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > I've been playing with approaches to getting better optimization of loops which contain infrequently executed slow paths. I've gotten as far as

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> > wrote: > >> I've been playing with approaches to getting better optimization of loops >> which contain infrequently executed slow paths. I've gotten as far as >> throwing together a

On 01/07/2015 05:33 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > How does this compare with classical approaches of loop peeling, > partitioning, fission, or whatever you might call it? I'm still developing a good sense for this, but let me lay out some observations. Fair warning, this is going to be long and rambling. Let's start with a toy example: while(c) { x = this->x; y =

Here's a fun spin on this same topic (I can't file a bug at this moment since llvm.org is down). Consider: define i32 @x(i32* %x, i1* %y) { entry: br label %loop loop: %v = phi i32 [ 0 , %entry ], [ %v.inc, %exit.inner ], [ %v, %loop ] %c = load volatile i1, i1* %y br i1 %c, label %exit.inner, label %loop exit.inner: %c1 = load volatile i1, i1* %y %x.val = load i32, i32*

Hi, On 02/10/2016 01:23 AM, haicheng at codeaurora.org wrote: > Thank you, Mikael. I can reproduce what you saw and am looking into it. Great! > Just curious, why do you run loop-deletion before licm and loop-idiom? As part of our internal testing we use Csmith to generate C-programs and then we run the compiler with random generated compiler flags on that input. This bug was

Hi all, I would like to propose an improvement of the “almost dead” block elimination in Transforms/Local.cpp so that it will preserve the canonical loop form for loops with a volatile iteration variable. *** Problem statement Nested loops in LCALS Subset B (https://codesign.llnl.gov/LCALS.php) are not vectorized with LLVM -O3 because the LLVM loop vectorizer fails the test whether the loop

Hi, TL;DR: A loop doesn't get vectorized due to the interaction of loop- rotate, licm and instcombine. What to do about it? Full story: In the benchmarks for our out-of-tree target we have a case that we would like to get vectorized, but currently it isn't. I've done some digging to see why and have some kind of idea what prevents it, but I don't know what the best way to fix

Hi, I am investigating a performance degradation between llvm-3.1 and llvm-3.2 (Note: current top-of-tree shows a similar degradation) One issue I see is the following: - 'loop invariant code motion' seems to be depending on the result of the 'reassociate expression' pass: In the samples below I observer the following behavior: Both start with the same expression: %add = add

It's an interesting problem. The best stuff I've seen published is by Cooper, Eckhart, & Kennedy, in PACT '08. Cooper gives a nice intro in one of his lectures: http://www.cs.rice.edu/~keith/512/2012/Lectures/26ReassocII-1up.pdf I can't tell, quickly, what's going on in Reassociate; as usual, the documentation resolutely avoids giving any credit for the ideas. Why is that?

On 01/25/2013 04:21 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > My point is that I specifically think that you should try it. I'm curious > to see how what you come up with might apply to other use cases as well. OK, attached is the first quick attempt towards this. I'm not proposing committing this, but would like to get comments to possibly move towards something committable. It simply looks for a

Status Update on VPlan ---- where we are currently, and what's ahead of us ==========================================================   Goal: ----- Extending Loop Vectorizer (LV) such that it can handle outer loops, via uplifting its infrastructure with VPlan. The goal of this status update is to summarize the progress and the future steps needed.   Background: ----------- This is related to

<div class="socmaildefaultfont" dir="ltr" style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt" ><div dir="ltr" ><font face="AppleSystemUIFont" size="3" >LoopUnrollAndJamPass is currently a loop pass. It is added in a LPM with only itself.</font><br><font face="AppleSystemUIFont"

Hello all, Thanks for the comments. Attached is a new version with Tobias' and Sebastian's (final?) comments addressed. Any further comments are appreciated. Nadav suggested a request for comments in llvmdev before committing it. In order to describe the current idea of the parallel loop metadata, I think it's easiest to just copy-paste the documentation I wrote for this patch so

Hi Haicheng, Originally I ran into this on our out-of-tree target but I managed to reproduce the crash on X86 as well now: build-all/bin/opt -S -sroa -loop-rotate -loop-deletion -licm -loop-idiom ../llvm/bugpoint-reduced-simplified.i8+.ll gives: While deleting: void % An asserting value handle still pointed to this value! UNREACHABLE executed at ../lib/IR/Value.cpp:696! 0 opt

On Jul 30, 2013, at 10:19 AM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > The pro for running LICM early is that it may move big redundant stuff out of loop nest. You never know > how big it is. In case you are lucky , you can move lot of stuff out of > loop, the loop may become much smaller and hence enable lots of downstream optimizations. This sound > to be a big win

> I am in favor of adding metadata to control different aspects of > vectorization, mainly for supporting user-level pargmas [1] but also for > DSLs. Before we start adding metadata to the IR we need to define the > semantics of the tags. "Parallel_for" is too general. We also want to control > vectorization factor, unroll factor, cost model, etc. These are used to

As far as I can understand of the code, the Reassociate tries to achieve this result by its "ranking" mechanism. If it dose not, it is not hard to achieve this result, just restructure the expression in a way such that the earlier definition of the sub-expression is permute earlier in the resulting expr. e.g. outer-loop1 x= outer-loop2 y =

Hello, LoopSimplify try to separate a loop with multiple backedges into a nested loop (an outer loop and an inner loop). Naturally, this kind of a loop corresponds to a single loop in source code. I can see this could be useful for cases described in the comments in lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopSimplify.cpp, which looks like a corner case. For most cases, how does this help ? Junjie

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 1:01 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 2014, at 12:44 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > >> > There appear to be two chunks of "functionality" provided by loop >> passes: >> >