similar to: [LLVMdev] Modifying LoopUnrollingPass

Optimization passes running before LoopVectorizer should be able to combine the two statements (this should be happening in O1. Pls check) arr[i] = a + i sum += arr[i] to sum += a + i Not sure, why are you using the array there. - Suyog On 4 May 2015 23:11, "Michael Zolotukhin" <mzolotukhin at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Yaduveer, > > Vectorizer probably fails because it

Hi Renato, Thanks for the help. I am trying to follow the AST way. I tried seeing the AST contents by using following command: *clang -Xclang -ast-dump -fsyntax-only loop.c* This is giving me some AST output( I believe so) but I am having two issue: 1. I am not able to put this output in a file as Its showing following error: *yaduveer at yaduveer-Inspiron-3542:~/RP$ clang -Xclang -ast-dump

Hi All, Thank you for your suggestions. @Michael: I tried your suggestion. I could run "Loop Vectorizer" successfully. But my problem is not solved. @Renato: I want to do the 1st type operation: 1) Use all cores, dividing the loop into multiple cores, one block at a time. But I don't want to use "OpenMP" for this. I don't want the user to mention OpenMP command

hi, In "LoopUnrollPass.cpp", when trying to reduce unroll count to meet the unroll threshold requirement in line 200 and line 206, variable "CurrentThreshold" is used in the computation, instead of the variable "Threshold", which is defined by: // Determine the current unrolling threshold. While this is normally set // from UnrollThreshold, it is overridden to

Does LLVM have loop multiversioning ? it seems it does not with clang++ -O3 -mllvm -debug-pass=Arguments program.c -c bash-4.1$ clang++ -O3 -mllvm -debug-pass=Arguments fast_algorithms.c -c clang-3.6: warning: treating 'c' input as 'c++' when in C++ mode, this behavior is deprecated Pass Arguments: -datalayout -notti -basictti -x86tti -targetlibinfo -no-aa -tbaa -scoped-noalias

add -basicaa to your command line :) On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Willy WOLFF <willy.mh.wolff at gmail.com> wrote: > I play a bit more with MemoryDependenceAnalysis by wrapping my pass, and > call explicitely BasicAliasAnalysis. Its still using No Alias Analysis. > > How can I let MemoryDependenceAnalysis use BasicAliasAnalysis? > > Please, find attached my pass. >

Hi, I'm a PhD student doing phase ordering as part of my PhD topic and I would like to ask some questions about LLVM. Executing the following command to see what passes does OPT execute when targeting a SPARC V8 processor: /opt/clang+llvm-3.7.1-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-15.10/bin/llvm-as < /dev/null | /opt/clang+llvm-3.7.1-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-15.10/bin/opt -O3 -march=sparc -mcpu=v8

On Dec 7, 2007, at 1:43 AM, Wojciech Matyjewicz wrote: > Recently, I was looking into the bug #1227. I wanted to check if > reordering optimization passes could solve it. To start with, I > tried to > reproduce the output of llvm-g++ -O3 using the combination of llvm-g++ > -O0 and opt with the appropriate passes. However, I was unable to. I > use > SVN versions of llvm and

Hi, I try to use MemoryDependenceAnalysis in a pass to analyse a simple function: void fct (int *restrict*restrict M, int *restrict*restrict L) { S1: M[1][1] = 1; S2: L[2][2] = 2; } When I iterate over MemoryDependenceAnalysis on the S2 statement, I get the load instruction for the first depth of the array, that’s ok. But I get also the load and store for the S1 statement. I assume the

Hi folks, This summer I'm working on improving dominators during my internship at Google. Below is an RFC on switching to dynamic dominators, which you can also read as a Google Doc <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wPYeWykeO51YDPLYQEg4KNTlDIGIdyF65OTfhSMaNHQ/edit?usp=sharing> if you prefer so. Please let us know what you think. ~Kuba

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 01:07:07PM -0700, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev wrote: > > > On May 9, 2016, at 10:43 AM, Ricardo Nobre via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm a PhD student doing phase ordering as part of my PhD topic and I would like to ask some questions about LLVM. > > > > Executing the following

Hi, Recently, I was looking into the bug #1227. I wanted to check if reordering optimization passes could solve it. To start with, I tried to reproduce the output of llvm-g++ -O3 using the combination of llvm-g++ -O0 and opt with the appropriate passes. However, I was unable to. I use SVN versions of llvm and llvm-gcc-4.2. First, I compile example.cpp (attached; taken from the bug #1227) with: $

Hi Kuba, Thanks for your advice in your previous letter. During last week, I have read the documents on Doxygen and the source code of the DomTreeBase/DomTree/PostDomTree/DeferredDominance class, I believe now I have a much better understanding on the relationship between these classes and how DeferredDominance class performs lazy updates. I have also learnt the current usage and drawbacks of

Hi Kuba, Thanks for your clarification on the project in the previous letter. I have submitted a proposal draft at the GSoC website, the draft has been shared with the LLVM organization. I will appreciate it if you can give me some advice on the proposal. This draft can be viewed by the organization. (If you do not have access, please mail me, and I will give you the link.) I am looking forward

I think it would make sense for (1) and (2). I am not sure if (3) is feasible in instcombine. (I am not too familiar with LoopInfo) For the Octasic's Opus platform, I modified shouldMergeGEPs in our fork to: if (GEP.hasAllZeroIndices() && !Src.hasAllZeroIndices() && !Src.hasOneUse()) return false; return Src.hasAllConstantIndices(); // was return false;

Hello, I am trying to simplify the CFG of a given code and eliminate the conditionals, even though I will obtain codes that are not semantically equivalent. For example, given a simple loop: for(i=0; i<N; i++){    a[i] = i;     if (i%2==0)       a[i] += 12; } I would keep only the loop, without the if statement: for(i=0; i<N; i++){    a[i] = i; } I can eliminate such conditionals on

Hi Tobias, 1) Daniel and Chandler have for a long time been talking about computing > dominance and post-dominance in one shot to reduce the cost of > post-dominance and make it (freely) available everywhere. Is this > covered by your current (or planned) work? I'm not sure what you exactly mean by one shot; I'll ask around tomorrow. I wanted to play a little bit with your

Hi, On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Pekka Nikander <pekka.nikander at nomadiclab.com> wrote: >  Would the best way be to add an option to -loop-unroll, and hack away at lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopUnroll.cpp? Instead, the better alternative is to write another pass similar to LoopUnrollPass.cpp (say LoopPeelPass.cpp) and add new option -loop-peel. The new pass could use llvm::UnrollLoop()

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 4, 2008, at 8:58 AM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > > What optimization pass promotes 32 bit math operations to 64 bit operations > so I can disable it? I have code that works fine with optimizations turned > off but fails with it turned on because of this stage. > > > Do you have a

Hi Chijun, Great, seems like you did a lot of progress and understand the issues quite well! I have done some early sketch on the API of the new updater class. > From my current understanding, to solve the fragmentation problem of > the API, the new class first, need to maintain the DomTree and > PostDomTree class and deprecate the DefferredDominance class. > There are a couple of