similar to: [LLVMdev] confusion w.r.t. scalar evolution and nuw

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

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, Would you be able to kindly check and assist with the IndVarSimplify / SCEV problem I got in the latest LLVM, please? Sometimes IndVarSimplify may not eliminate narrow IV's when there actually exists such a possibility. This may affect other LLVM passes and result in inefficient code. The reproducing test 'indvar_test.cpp' is attached. The problem is with the second

Hi Sanjoy, Thank you for looking into this! Yes, your patch does fix my larger test case too. My algorithm gets double performance improvement with the patch, as the loop now has a smaller instruction set and succeeds to unroll w/o any extra #pragma's. I also ran the LLVM tests against the patch. There are 6 new failures: Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/number-of-memchecks.ll

On Nov 13, 2013, at 3:39 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > 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

Hello Everyone, I want to raise a discussion about reasonability of late setting of nsw/nuw/nw flags to SCEV AddRecs through setNoWrapFlags method. A discussion about this have already happened in August last year, there was a concern about different no-wrap flags that come from different sequences of SCEV flags invocations. It was mentioned there that late setting of flags is actually a hack to

On 16 November 2013 06:56, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > - getMulExpr constructs a new AddRec with NSW: > > Flags = AddRec->getNoWrapFlags(clearFlags(Flags, SCEV::FlagNW)); > const SCEV *NewRec = getAddRecExpr(NewOps, AddRecLoop, Flags); > Hi Andrew, Thanks for looking at this. Clearing the flags here makes sense, but it's being too

Thanks for your insides Sanjoy! I don't really believe that option 2 may work just because even if we recalculate the range for this add recurrency, there are already its derivatives with cached ranges (the most obvious example is sext and expressions where this sext is involved). We can speculate about what is "simple enough" to not cache the ranges, but I believe that there is

Hi Max, On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:03 PM, Maxim Kazantsev via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I want to raise a discussion about reasonability of late setting of > nsw/nuw/nw flags to SCEV AddRecs through setNoWrapFlags method. A discussion > about this have already happened in August last year, there was a concern > about different no-wrap flags that come from

Hi, I'm working on a bug somewhere between SCEV and IndVarSimplify, which tacks an unwanted "nuw" onto an "add i32 %whatever, -1" (which actually almost certainly will overflow), leading ultimately to an infinite loop. A fuller description and test-case is at the end for anyone interested. The issue seems to be with ScalarEvolution's attempts to cache SCEV objects,

> 1. Callers are expected to not engage in speculation. ScalarEvolution > itself must only create expressions it knows hold in all cases. This is correct. There is some more relevant text in ScalarEvolution::isSCEVExprNeverPoison. And you're right, this is quite restrictive. > Long term, I think that it would be cleaner to rework this so that all of the SCEV's are immutable

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Maxim Kazantsev <max.kazantsev at azul.com> wrote: > I don't really believe that option 2 may work just because even if we recalculate the range for this add recurrency, there are already its derivatives with cached ranges (the most obvious example is sext and expressions where this sext is involved). We can speculate about what is "simple

Hi Sanjoy, SCEV is behaving inconsistently when forming SCEV for this zext instruction in the attached test case- %conv5 = zext i32 %dec to i64 If we request a SCEV for the instruction, it returns- (zext i32 {{-1,+,1}<nw><%for.body>,+,-1}<nw><%for.body7> to i64) This can be seen by invoking- $ opt -analyze -scalar-evolution inconsistent-scev-zext.ll But when computing

Hi, I have a SCEV like this: {16,+,8}. Say that this came from a loop like: int64_t *p; for (int64_t i = 0; i < ...; ++i) p[i+2]... And assuming that I'm on a 64-bit machine. What I would like to do is normalize it like that, basically this: {2,+,1} i.e. map it to the index. Now, I tried to get the underlying element size of the pointer, then getUDivExpr(OriginalSCEV, ElementSize); But

----- Original Message ----- > > 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 > > > >

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 =

Hi, +CC Max, Serguei This looks like a textbook case of why caching is hard. We first call getZeroExtendExpr on %dec, and this call does end up returning an add rec. However, in the process of simplifying the zext, it also calls into isLoopBackedgeGuardedByCond which in turn calls getZeroExtendExpr(%dec) again. However, this second (recursive) time, we don't simplify the zext and cache a

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 >

Hi, I think these two patches are related to the topic: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41578 “[SCEV] Do not cache S -> V if S is not equivalent of V” * It’s committed. It can cause generation of redundant instructions. We’ve got regressions due to it. The biggest one is 7.31% regression in Spec2k6 401.bzip2 on Cortex-A57(AArch64). https://reviews.llvm.org/D42290 “[SCEV] Clear poison flags