similar to: Dynamic detection of signed integer overflow

Hi Johannes, Perfect, thanks! The CFG now looks very similar to what I got on LLVM 3.9.0 ([1] vs [2]). Any idea why setting -simplifycfg-sink-common=false is necessary? Similar to LLVM 5.0.1, the default for 3.9.0 is true [3], and setting it to false wasn't necessary in the latter version. [1] https://nautilus.bjornweb.nl/files/polly501-cfg-simplifycfg-sink-common.pdf [2]

Hi Johannes, Sanjoy has given you great information already. On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > Johannes Doerfert wrote: > > Is there any plan to use e.g., post-dominance information to > > propagate wrapping flags? > > None that I'm aware of. > > > If x +nsw y post-dominates the entry block > >

On 12 August 2014 18:49, Johannes Doerfert <doerfert at cs.uni-saarland.de> wrote: > I recently submitted a patch to the list [1] which would allow Polly to > extract the dependency distance for each analyzable loop. While the > distance is often not constant but parametric we would also need to > version the vectorized loop based on the actual runtime values. Since this is a

So, I forwarded the request for highlighting trailing whitespaces to phabricator upstream (https://secure.phabricator.com/T11879), and upstream folks suggest we enable the Lint feature in Arcanist ( https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabricator/article/arcanist_lint/). This will enforce the check when `arc diff` is run (reviewers wouldn't see the warnings though). There are two linters we

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

The hacker's lab will be organized similar to the one at the US 2016 meeting [0]. That means 1.5 hour sessions and theme tables in the different rooms. Each table (~10) will have a sign on it to represent a sub-project or area of LLVM. This will help newcomers and even active developers congregate together on specific topics. In addition to labeling tables, we are asking for volunteers to

Hello everyone, My name is Pratik Bhatu, I am a bachelor student currently studying at IIT Hyderabad, India.  I just finished my Compilers course have been exploring LLVM since the past month (kaleidoscope, writing LLVM passes) and am interested in the llvm-polly project. I am also a potential GSoC applicant and wanted to start working on the project from now. Is there a way I can

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

Hi all, In LLVM language reference I read that one can use noalias and alias.scope metadata to provide more detailed information about pointer aliasing. However, I was unable to obtain any LLVM IR annotations using this metadata from any LLVM optimization pass or Clang frontend (am I missing something?). If I understand it correctly, this information would complement the type-based alias

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

Dear All; Is there any work that discusses ​LLVM framework's short comings regarding auto vectorization and polyhedral optimizations? Regards, > -- Abid M. Malik ****************************************************** "I have learned silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind"---Gibran "Success is not for the chosen few, but

On 03/23, Hongbin Zheng wrote: > Hi Johannes, > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Johannes Doerfert < > doerfert at cs.uni-saarland.de> wrote: > > > Hey Utpal, > > > > First of, I think you made nice process here and have some very good > > ideas of what we could do in the future. > > > > [NOTE: I CC'ed some people that have shown

Hi, On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Actually, I started to copy parts of the ScalarEvolution interface in > order to integrate the analysis passes this way into LLVM > transformations. While it is obviously hard (and probably not useful) to > provide "exactly" the same interface as

On 03/20/2018 05:05 AM, Michael Kruse wrote: > There's none yet according to http://llvm.org/devmtg/2018-04/#talks > > Unfortunately, I won't be present, but IMHO it would be nice to have one. I agree. This seems like a good idea.  -Hal > > Michael > > > > 2018-03-20 7:50 GMT+01:00 Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>: >> Hey folks, >>

Hi Sebastian, thanks for the comments! On 09/27, Sebastian Pop wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Tobias Grosser via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017, at 00:03, Johannes Doerfert wrote: > >> It depends on what you want. If you want a polyhedral scheduler right > >> away, integration is the way to go. > > I

<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,

".... 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 Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Tobias Grosser via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017, at 00:03, Johannes Doerfert wrote: >> It depends on what you want. If you want a polyhedral scheduler right >> away, integration is the way to go. I think this is the topic of the thread as the folks who started this discussion stated that they want to see

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.

Julia and OpenMP 4.0 have features where the user can bless a loop as having no memory dependences that prevent vectorization, thus enabling vectorization of loops not amenable to compile-time or run-time dependence analysis. LLVM currently has no metadata to express such, as explained further below. I'd like to propose new metadata that enables front-ends to tell the vectorizer that