similar to: noalias parameter attribute not currently exploited by alias analysis?

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alex Bradbury" <asb at asbradbury.org> > To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2015 10:30:09 AM > Subject: Re: noalias parameter attribute not currently exploited by alias analysis? > > On 2 November 2015 at 20:20, Alex Bradbury <asb at

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 7:02:58 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Upcoming Changes/Additions to Scoped-NoAlias metadata > > > >

Hello, Currently the noalias attribute can be applied on function parameters and return value, or via scoped alias on store. The problem is that there is no easy way to apply the noalias attribute on a pointer that is loaded indirectly (e.g from the field of an aggregate, or from a memory location - though for this you can still use scoped alias, but they are a lot more intrusive) The idea

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Raul Silvera" <rsilvera at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 10:34:39 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Upcoming

Hi everyone, As many of you might know, LLVM now has scoped noalias metadata (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#noalias-and-alias-scope-metadata) -- it allows us to preserve noalias function argument attributes when inlining, in addition to allowing frontends to add otherwise non-deducible aliasing properties to memory accesses. This currently works well, but needs a change and an intrinsic, as

On 11/13/2014 05:02 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > This intrinsic needs to carry control dependencies (it cannot be > hoisted out of a loop, for example) -- in this sense it is very > much like @llvm.assume. And like @llvm.assume, we'll need to add > logic to various passes to ignore it as appropriate so that it > does not block optimizations

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Raul Silvera" <rsilvera at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 9:09:40 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Upcoming

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Raul Silvera" <rsilvera at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 7:20:04 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Upcoming Changes/Additions

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Raul Silvera" <rsilvera at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 11:23:25 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Upcoming

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Raul Silvera" <rsilvera at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 12:15:51 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Upcoming

Hi Daniel, On April 11, 2017 at 6:22:34 PM, Daniel Berlin (dberlin at dberlin.org) wrote: > Note: This is a generic problem with any situation where noalias exists but > the pointers are proven equal :) Yes. > TBAA, for example, has the same generic issue, we just drop the tbaa > metadata and declare it okay, even though it would have been UB at the > source level. Yes.  I

Hi, Mehdi, For example, I have this very simple source code: void foo( int n, int array_x[]) { for (int i=0; i < n; i++) array_x[i] = i; } After I use "clang -emit-llvm -o bc_from_clang.bc -c try.cc", I get bc_from_clang.bc. With my code (using LLVM IRbuilder API), I get bc_from_api.bc. Attachment please find thse two files. I also past the IR here.

Thanks for your point that out. I just add DataLayout in my code such as "mod->setDataLayout("e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128");", still no luck. I'm really confused about this. Do I need to add more passes before -loop-unroll? On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Aug 22, 2015, at 7:27 AM, Xiangyang

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Raul Silvera" <rsilvera at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 5:31:24 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Upcoming Changes/Additions

Hello. Mikhail, with the more recent version of the LoopVectorize.cpp code (retrieved at the beginning of July 2016) I ran the following piece of C code: void foo(long *A, long *B, long *C, long N) { for (long i = 0; i < N; ++i) { C[i] = A[i] + B[i]; } } The vectorized LLVM program I obtain contains 2 vector.body blocks - one named

Given some code: void func (float * restrict a, float *b) { for (int i =0; i < 100; ++i) { a[i] = b[i] + 1; } } float * aa; float * bb; int main() { func(aa, bb); return 0; } produces IR that has the llvm.noalias intrinsic along with the !noalias metadata:for both the load and store, however, AA returns MayAlias, I would expect a NoAlias? This is also an older version of llvm:

Hi, Looking at how noalias is defined: https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#noalias-and-alias-scope-metadata "When evaluating an aliasing query, **if for some domain**, the set of scopes with that domain in one instruction’s alias.scope list is a subset of (or equal to) the set of scopes for that domain in another instruction’s noalias list, then the two memory accesses are assumed not to

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Guo, Xiaoyi <Xiaoyi.Guo at amd.com> wrote: > So fence only forces ordering of atomic instructions.**** > > ** ** > > Let me change my question then.**** > > ** ** > > If I have a target-specific intrinsic which forces ordering of ordinary > load/store instructions. Then should it also force ordering of load/stores > to

Ping? (Is there a code owner for AA, btw?) From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Kuperstein, Michael M Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 18:23 To: LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu Cc: Raoux, Thomas F Subject: [LLVMdev] Mixing noalias and regular arguments Hi all, I'm trying to understand the semantics of noalias arguments, and I'm not entirely sure I

Hi all, I'm trying to understand the semantics of noalias arguments, and I'm not entirely sure I got it correctly. To the best of my understanding, if an argument is declared noalias, "This indicates that pointer values based on the argument do not alias pointer values which are not based on it" implies, among other things, that it cannot alias any other argument, even if that