similar to: GEP index canonicalization

Hi I have this program in which fooBuf can only take on NULL or the address of local_fooBuf, and fooBuf and local_fooBuf have scope of the foo function. Therefore there is no way for the fooPtr argument to alias with fooBuf. However, LLVM basicaa and globalsmodref-aa say the 2 pointers may alias. I am thinking whether i should implement a limited form of point-to alias on the fooBuf pointer in

But even for a very simple loop: int test1 (int *x, int *y, int *z, int k) { int sum = 0; for (int i = 10; i < k; i++) { z[i] = x[i] / y[i]; } return sum; } The initial value of induction variable is not zero after compiling with -O3 -mcpu=power8 x.cpp -S -c -emit-llvm -fno-unroll-loops (see bottom of the email for IR) Also I can write somewhat more complicated loop where step

I just subscribed this group. This is my first time to post a question (not sure if this is a right place for discussion) after I have a brief look at LLVM OPT (dev trunk). I would expect loop simplification and induction variable canonicalization pass (IndVarSimplify pass) should be able to convert the following loops into a simple canonical form, i.e., there is a canonical induction variable

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.

On 07/04/2013 01:39 PM, Stéphane Letz wrote: > Hi, > > Our DSL can generate C or directly generate LLVM IR. With LLVM 3.3, we can vectorize the C produced code using clang with -O3, or clang with -O1 then opt -O3 -vectorize-loops. But the same program generating LLVM IR version cannot be vectorized with opt -O3 -vectorize-loops. So our guess is that our generated LLVM IR lacks some

Hi, I want to use loop unrolling pass, however, I find that loop unrolling will introduces conditional branch at end of every "unrolled" part. For example, consider the following code *void foo( int n, int array_x[])* *{* * for (int i=0; i < n; i++)* * array_x[i] = i; * *}* Then I use this command "opt-3.5 try.bc -mem2reg -loops -loop-simplify -loop-rotate -lcssa

Hi, Our DSL can generate C or directly generate LLVM IR. With LLVM 3.3, we can vectorize the C produced code using clang with -O3, or clang with -O1 then opt -O3 -vectorize-loops. But the same program generating LLVM IR version cannot be vectorized with opt -O3 -vectorize-loops. So our guess is that our generated LLVM IR lacks some informations that are needed by the vectorization passes to

Hi, I just tried llvm-3.8 (LLVM SVN Repository). With this version, -fno-rtti can help me to compile my code and -irce can help me to do a better job for loop unrolling. However, I still have one question. If I use Clang to compile a piece of c++ code to .bc and then use 'opt -loop-rotate -loop-unroll -irce', I can get what I want. I mean, there is no conditional branch at the end of each

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

Hi Xiangyang, The algorithm for loop unrolling was changed post-3.5 to do more what you'd expect. If you use 3.6 or 3.7 you'll likely get better results. Cheers, James On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 at 18:09 Philip Reames via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 08/20/2015 07:38 AM, Xiangyang Guo via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi, > > I want to use loop unrolling

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

There's been some recent noise on the mailing list about requiring -fno-rtti; http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-August/089010.html Could that be it? On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Xiangyang Guo via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, James and Philip, Thanks for your help. > > Based on your advice, I downloaded llvm-3.7. However, with this new

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > To: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 1:58:02 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Improving loop vectorizer support for loops > with a volatile iteration variable > ----- Original Message ----- > >

Hello . I'm trying to implement FunctionPass for detecting loops in llvm IR. How can I get <condition> for loop from llvm::Loop object.? Is there any example? Thanks in advance, Edvard  -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120723/85e7f2f9/attachment.html>

Sent from my iPhone... On Jun 25, 2013, at 8:14 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> >> >> >> On Jun 24, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Indvars should ideally preserve NSW flags whenever possible. However, >> we don't want to

Hi Gerolf, I think we have several (perhaps separable) issues here: 1. Do we have a canonical form for loops, preserved through the optimizer, that allows naturally-constructed loop nests to remain separable? 2. Do we forbid non-lowering transformations that turn vectorizable loops into non-vectorizable loops? 3. How do we detect cases where transformations cause a negative answer to either

Hello, I'm using LLVM to reason about memory safety of programs. One goal is to prove that certain array accesses are always safe. Currently, one of these proofs fails because of a missing no-signed-wrap (nsw) flag. I found that it has been "lost" during the SimplifyIndVar pass. Here's the example: int foo(int a[]) { int sum = 0; for (int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i)

----- Original Message ----- > > > > On Jun 24, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov > wrote: > > > > > Indvars should ideally preserve NSW flags whenever possible. However, > we don't want to rely on SCEV to preserve them. SCEV expressions are > implicitly reassociated and uniqued in a flow-insensitive universe > independent of the

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

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Hyojin Sung" <hsung at us.ibm.com>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 1:06:03 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Improving loop vectorizer support for loops > with a volatile iteration