similar to: [LLVMdev] Loop Vectorization and Store-Load Forwarding issue

Hi Ashutosh, Have you been following the recent Loop Access Analysis work? LAA was split out from the Loop Vectorizer that have been performing the kind of loop versioning that you describe. The main reason was to be able to share this functionality with other passes. Loop Access Analysis is an analysis pass that computes basic memory dependence and the runtime checks. The versioning decision

> On Mar 3, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com <mailto:Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com>> wrote: > > Hi Adam, > > Thanks for looking into LoopVersioning work. > > I have gone through recent LoopAccessAnalysis changes and found some of the stuff > overlaps (i.e. runtime memory check, loop access analysis etc.). LoopVersioning can > use

Hi all, While developing compile-time instrumentation for ThreadSanitizer (http://code.google.com/p/data-race-test) I need to generate SEME regions without loop and call instructions (I'll call them superblocks hereafter, although some researchers do allow loops in their definition of superblocks). This is necessary to get the largest piece of IR in which the memory operations can be

Changes v1-v2: - Remove restriction that BTRFS_IOC_GET_DEVICE_STATS is a privileged operation - Cast u64 to unsigned long long for printf() Changes v2-v3: - Rebased on Chris'' current master Changes v3-v4: - Add padding at end of ioctl structure Changes v4-v5: - The statistic members in the ioctl are now organized as an array of 64 bit values. Symbolic names for the array indexes

I like to propose a new loop multi versioning optimization for LICM. For now I kept this for LICM only, but it can be used in multiple places. The main motivation is to allow optimizations stuck because of memory alias dependencies. Most of the time when alias analysis is unsure about memory access and it says may-alias. This un surety from alias analysis restrict some of the memory based

Fix that when scrub tries to repair an I/O or checksum error and one of the devices containing the mirror is missing, it crashes in bio_add_page because the bdev is a NULL pointer for missing devices. Reported-by: Marco L. Crociani <marco.crociani@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Stefan Behrens <sbehrens@giantdisaster.de> --- fs/btrfs/scrub.c | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

Hi all, I was intending on trying out gjournal on a new disk i've added in my desktop. I had a look to see what the most recent patch provided by Pawel and found http://people.freebsd.org/~pjd/patches/gjournal6_20061024.patch I created the directories as per Pawel's original post (http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2006-June/001962.html) and the patch succeeded with no failed

Hi, > On Jul 7, 2020, at 18:37, Stefanos Baziotis via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > Ah, that's important information I didn't have. Thank you! > > No problem, glad to help! > > To the rest of your thoughts, I certainly agree. One interesting question is why LAA > didn't use DA at all. Other than that, note that LAA is quite

Hi All, I am trying to read group descriptor from disk. I am able to read the superblock structure successfully. But I am not getting successful to get the group descriptor. Here is my code. Please check out what is missing. #include<linux/ext3_fs.h> #include<sys/types.h> #include<sys/stat.h> #include<stdio.h> #include<unistd.h> #include<fcntl.h>

Hi , The following loop fails to be vectorized since the load c[i] is casted as i64 and the store c[i] is double. The loop access analysis gives up since they are in different types. Since these two memory operations are in the same size, I believe the loop access analysis should return forward dependence and thus the loop can be vectorized. Any comments? Thanks, Jin #define N 1000 double

Stefanos Baziotis via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > Their most important difference is that DA is used for compile-time / > static checks while LAA is mainly used for generating run-time checks. Ah, that's important information I didn't have. Thank you! > Now, as for unifying them, if we mean something other than just putting > them in the same file,

Hi everyone, I am in a real panic here and would appreciate any help. I have students not being able to save any files! I have a samba server that was joined to a win2k active directory and running for months. I dont know why, but now it isn't working correctly. This error is filling my logs: ------------------- libads/kerberos_verify.c:ads_keytab_verify_ticket(113)

Hi Ashutosh, > On Mar 16, 2015, at 9:06 PM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> wrote: > > Hi Adam, > > From: Adam Nemet [mailto:anemet at apple.com <mailto:anemet at apple.com>] > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 10:48 AM > To: Nema, Ashutosh > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: Loop

> On Mar 5, 2015, at 10:33 PM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> wrote: > > > I am about to post the patches to make LAA suitable for Loop Distribution. As you will hopefully find this will make the LAA more generic. I will cc you on the patches. > > Sure Adam. > > RuntimeCheckEmitter > “RuntimeCheckEmitter::addRuntimeCheck” > While creating

Michael Kruse via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > AFAIK they are independent developments. LoopAccessAnalysis was > extracted out of the LoopVectorizer in 2015, and first developed in > 2013 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/d517976758c8674bdcd4c74457f7a83f20e432c5) > > DependenceAnalysis was a from-scratch implementation from 2012 >

> On Mar 19, 2015, at 9:46 PM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> wrote: > > Thanks Adam for your reply. > > From: Adam Nemet [mailto:anemet at apple.com <mailto:anemet at apple.com>] > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 3:23 AM > To: Nema, Ashutosh > Cc: Hal Finkel; Philip Reames; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Subject:

> On Mar 20, 2015, at 8:02 PM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> wrote: > > > Yes, this is what I was proposing above and here ;): > Thanks Adam it’s for confirming J NP :). > > > No, not hasLoopInvariantStore but hasAccessToLoopInvariantAddress. > Its only for invariant stores[not loads], Using ‘hasLoopInvariantStore’ (or a name with invariant store)

Hello, could you please have a look at this code posted on godbolt.org: https://godbolt.org/z/O-O-Q7 The problem is that inside the compute function, only the first loop vectorizes while the rest copies of it don't. But if I remove any of the for loops, then the rest vectorize successfully. Could you please confirm that this is a bug, otherwise give me more insight on why the vectorization

> On Jul 13, 2016, at 2:02 AM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com <mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com>> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:40 AM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com <mailto:chisophugis at gmail.com>> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13,

On 09/22/2017 12:03 AM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > Hi Hal, > > > 2017-09-21 20:59 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>: > > > On 09/12/2017 10:26 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner wrote: >> >> >>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev >>> <llvm-dev at