similar to: [LLVMdev] [lld] Need help: "buildbot failure in LLVM on lld-x86_64-freebsd"

Hello, Is there a analysis pass which calculates the ModRefBehaviours OnlyReadsPointerArguments and OnlyAccessesPointerArguments? I tried to find one but so far I only saw that different AA's return OnlyReadsMemory and DoesNotAccessMemory if the readonly and readnone attributes are set. Best regards and thanks in advance, Johannes -- Johannes Doerfert Researcher / PhD Student

Registered, thx! On 03/13, Renato Golin wrote: > On 13 March 2017 at 13:01, Tobias Grosser <tobias.grosser at inf.ethz.ch> wrote: > > I am happy to merge these things. > > Ok. We'll need a big table. :) -- Johannes Doerfert Researcher / PhD Student Compiler Design Lab (Prof. Hack) Saarland Informatics Campus, Germany Building E1.3, Room 4.31 Tel. +49 (0)681

Hi Johannes, Actually, I'm working in the same scenario, i.e. configure + make of a benchmark/program/library like you said. I've got your point of using this script as a replacement to generate .bc files instead of a executable. That's truly helpful and has already answered my original question. Now I'm actually moving a step further. Take the same example in your reply, say, if

Hal, Johannes, Thanks for the feedback. I have been digging into this a little bit more and was able to have some of this metadata being generated. Nevertheless, I am confused about the semantics of this metadata. Let me explain: I was expecting the alias metadata to complement the information that alias analysis passes compute. However, it seems that the alias information of the pointers used

The IR-region annotation we proposed is as below, there is no @llvm.parallel.for.iterator()..... There is no change to loop CFG. alloc A[100]; %t = call token @llvm.region.entry()["parallel.for"()] for(i = 0; i < 100; i++) { a[i] = f(i); } @llvm.region.exit(%t)() ["end.parallel.for"()] Xinmin -----Original Message----- From: Johannes Doerfert

Hi Johannes, By following your directions, I can use your script as is to produce the .bc file now. Here's my command line for compiling s_sin.c into s_sin.bc file and the output: command line: ~/Downloads/newlib-2.1.0/newlib/libm/mathfp » python ~/llvm_link.py s_sin.c -I../common/ -I../../libc/include/ -o s_sin.bc output: Initiate CLANG (/path-to-clang): Options: 's_sin.c

On 01/11, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev wrote: > > > > def int_experimental_directive : Intrinsic<[], [llvm_metadata_ty], > > [IntrArgMemOnly], > > "llvm.experimental.directive">; > > > > def int_experimental_dir_qual : Intrinsic<[], [llvm_metadata_ty], > > [IntrArgMemOnly], > >

> On Mar 8, 2017, at 10:55 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 8, 2017, at 5:36 AM, Johannes Doerfert <doerfert at cs.uni-saarland.de> wrote: >> >> <mehdi.amini at apple.com>, >> Bcc: >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC][PIR] Parallel LLVM IR -- Stage 0 -- IR extension >> Reply-To: >>

On 03/08/2017 12:44 PM, Johannes Doerfert wrote: > I don't know who pointed it out first but Mehdi made me aware of it at > CGO. I try to explain it shortly. > > Given the following situation (in pseudo code): > > alloc A[100]; > parallel_for(i = 0; i < 100; i++) > A[i] = f(i); > > acc = 1; > for(i = 0; i < 100; i++) > acc = acc *

Why isn’t it in the LLVM repo? > On Nov 16, 2016, at 7:44 AM, Johannes Doerfert <doerfert at cs.uni-saarland.de> wrote: > > We have a clang format based arcanist linter (and some others) in the > Polly repository. When arcanist is used to create a review, the linter > result is shown online. We also have an arcanist add-on to run the lit > tests and show their result in

Hi Christian, We put your name down for an exception handling table at the same time & room as the ARM (32/64) table [Renato]. I hope this is OK with you. Thanks! -- Johannes On 03/24, Christian Bruel wrote: > Hello, > > If there is a table on Exception handling, Can I have a slot in the agenda > to discuss a proposal to clarify and adapt the attributes used to handle the

@Vivek, thanks for your answer and especially these links! I just want to add two more though I am not sure if they are useful here: - Some slides [0] that explain the general structure of LLVM and LLVM-IR I used in our compiler class last year [0]. - Examples that build LLVM-IR "from scratch". These were designed to help students to build an LLVM-IR frontend for their AST.

".... the problem Mehdi pointed out regarding the missed initializations of array elements, did you comment on that one yet?" What is the initializations of array elements question? I don't remember this question. Please refresh my memory. Thanks. I thought Mehdi's question is more about what are attributes needed for these IR-annotation for other LLVM pass to understand and

> On Mar 8, 2017, at 11:50 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > > On 03/08/2017 01:24 PM, Tian, Xinmin wrote: >> I assume the referring case is something like below, right? >> >> #pragma omp parallel num_threads(n) >> { >> #pragma omp critical >> { >> x = x + 1; >> } >> }

I assume the referring case is something like below, right? #pragma omp parallel num_threads(n) { #pragma omp critical { x = x + 1; } } If that is the case, the programmer is already writing the code that is not "serial equivalent". Our representation for parallelizer is %t = @llvm.region.entry()["omp.parallel"(),

<mehdi.amini at apple.com>, Bcc: Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC][PIR] Parallel LLVM IR -- Stage 0 -- IR extension Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <20170224221713.GA931 at arch-linux-jd.home> Ping. PS. Are there actually people interested in this? We will continue working anyway but it might not make sense to put it on reviews and announce it on the ML if nobody cares. On 02/24,

A quick update, we have been looking through all LLVM passes to identify the impact of "IR-region annotation", and interaction issues with the rest of LoopOpt and scalarOpt, e.g. interaction with vectorization when you have schedule(simd:guided: 64). What are the common properties for optimizer to know on IR-region annotations. We have our implementation working from O0, O1, O2 to O3.

Hello, I was wondering under which circumstances ScalarEvolution will propagate the no wrap flags from binary operators. In particular I looked at non-loop carried code, e.g., as in the following function: int add(int x, int y) { return x + y; } for which clang uses an "add nsw" instruction but ScalarEvolution does not propagate this information. The -analyze output looks like this:

On 08/20, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > > > On Aug 20, 2014, at 8:08 AM, Robison, Arch <arch.robison at intel.com> wrote: > > > >> I recommend that you send patches for an implementation > >> (including the Loop::GetAnnotatedVectorSafelen function > >> and associated updates to the vectorizer) for review. > > > > I expect to send the

Dear community, In preparation for the BoF on Parallel IR at the US developers meeting we would like to collect feedback from the whole community. The concerns, ideas, etc. will be summarized in the BoF and should provide a good starting point for a discussion. We know that over the years the topic of a parallel extension for LLVM was discussed on the mailing list [0, 1, 2], workshops [3, 4] or