similar to: Request suggestions about how to remove redundencies caused by SCEV expansion fundementally

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Wei Mi via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> SCEV expansion sometimes generates redundent expr even if there is an >> available expr which can be reused. The redundent exprs can be a lot >> different from existing

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Wei Mi via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> >> To: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> >> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "David Li" <davidxl at google.com> >> Sent:

> On Aug 23, 2016, at 11:30 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > Hi Wei, > > I've not seen GCC's SCEV so I cannot make a comparative comment here > (maybe Chris, Andy or Dan can chime in here), but I personally am in > the "make the cleanup passes smarter" camp. We can also try to make > SCEV expansion smarter -- not by

Hi Wei, Wei Mi wrote: > Sanjoy and Andy, thanks a lot for your suggestions. > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Andrew Trick<atrick at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> On Aug 23, 2016, at 11:30 PM, Sanjoy Das<sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Wei, >>> >>> I've not seen GCC's SCEV so I cannot

Hi All, I've run into what appears to be a bug in ScalarEvolution, but I'm not sure if it is instead caused by me missing an implicit assumption between LSR and SCEV. This issue is caused by the change D18001 <http://reviews.llvm.org/D18001> , which is an attempt to increase SCEV-inserted instruction re-use by picking a more canonical insertion position in the case where a new

Hi Alex, Sanjoy, exposing the internal IRBuilder to users of SCEVExpander violates information hiding, and encourages the tight coupling that makes code bases such as Polly so hard to maintain. SCEVExpander::expandCodeFor returns a Value that (if it's an instruction) can be used to update the insert point of the client's IRBuilder. Is that not enough? No hidden state, no hidden state

Hello, I use SCEVExpander and IRBuilder to generate some code and I frequently end-up breaking dominance because the SCEVExpander insertion point and the IRBuilder insertion point do not advance in synchrony. Ideally, I could build a SCEVExpander based on an existing IRBuilder (so that they move each other). Or even better, SCEVExpander inherit from IRBuilder and basically extend it with SCEV

Hi Geoff, Firstly, I think it will be great if you have a small reproducer of this issue (which I can make fail after re-applying D18001 to ToT). > I’ve run into what appears to be a bug in ScalarEvolution, but I’m not sure > if it is instead caused by me missing an implicit assumption between LSR and > SCEV. > > This issue is caused by the change D18001, which is an attempt to

Originally on llvm-commits. On May 30, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: >> This is probably fine for now. It's a relatively safe use of SCEVExpander and the least effort approach, but generally I would like to encourage people to solve local rewrite problems with IRBuilder, not SCEVExpander, and build useful utilities for that purpose. Just because you

Hey, Alternatively, expose a SCEVExpander::getInsertPoint? This would proxy the underlying IRbuilder, with no real state sharing, other than the current insert point. This will be less ugly than recieving the expanded SCEV value, casting to an instruction, and feeding this to the IRBuilder. Cheers, siddharth On Thu 3 May, 2018, 15:36 Philip Pfaffe via llvm-dev, < llvm-dev at

We've upgraded to llvm 2.4 and we're hitting an assert in SCEV: llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/ScalarEvolutionExpressions.h:669: RetVal llvm::SCEVVisitor<SC, RetVal>::visitCouldNotCompute(llvm::SCEVCouldNotCompute*) [with SC = llvm::SCEVExpander, RetVal = llvm::Value*]: Assertion `0 && "Invalid use of SCEVCouldNotCompute!"' failed. This happens in

Hi Alexandre, Sorry I missed this -- I was on vacation when you sent this. SCEVExpander already has an IRBuilder in it but AFAICT it isn't exposed as a public interface. I'd be fine if you wanted to expose a public `GetIRBuilder()` accessor that let a SCEVExpander client use the same IRBuilder as SCEVExpander. -- Sanjoy On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Alexandre Isoard via llvm-dev

Hi, We have recently encountered incorrect code generation issues and I think it is a SCEVExpander bug exposed by a recent patch to add nuw/nsw flags when generating code for SCEVMulExpr. The test case IR looks like this- %1 = load i16, i16* %arrayidx %2 = and i16 %1, -32768 The SCEV form of %2 is this- (-32768 * (%1 /u -32768))<nuw><nsw> It has both nsw/nuw flags. The signed

Hi Geoff, How was it handled before your change? Were we just lucky that insert points always matched? Would it be possible to move all the logic for finding a proper insertion into SCEVExpander? I think that is ultimately the best solution for this, but I have to admit I looked into this code a while ago. Michael > On Mar 23, 2016, at 9:22 AM, Geoff Berry via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

Hi Steve it seems the general consensus is that the patch feels like a work-around for a problem with LSR (and possibly other loop transformations) that introduces redundant instructions. It is probably best to file a bug and a few of your test cases. Thanks Gerolf > On Sep 10, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Steve King via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015

David Greene wrote: > We've upgraded to llvm 2.4 and we're hitting an assert in SCEV: > > llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/ScalarEvolutionExpressions.h:669: RetVal > llvm::SCEVVisitor<SC, > RetVal>::visitCouldNotCompute(llvm::SCEVCouldNotCompute*) [with SC = > llvm::SCEVExpander, RetVal = llvm::Value*]: Assertion `0 && "Invalid use of >

On Friday 27 February 2009 00:50, Nick Lewycky wrote: > David Greene wrote: > > We've upgraded to llvm 2.4 and we're hitting an assert in SCEV: > > > > llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/ScalarEvolutionExpressions.h:669: RetVal > > llvm::SCEVVisitor<SC, > > RetVal>::visitCouldNotCompute(llvm::SCEVCouldNotCompute*) [with SC = > > llvm::SCEVExpander,

> On Aug 8, 2017, at 5:34 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > Hi Pankaj, > > IIRC there was pushback on this proposal so I did not proceed further. > Are you blocked on this? > > [+CC Andy, who I remember had some objections.] > > — Sanjoy Off the top of my head, my concern is that expression comparison is no longer constant time,

Hi, Yes SCEV is pretty limited on this aspect. This kind of code can trigger LLVM to explode in time/memory: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=18606 <https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=18606> See also this llvm-dev thread: SCEV implementation and limitations, do we need "pow"? : http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2014-February/070062.html CC: Sanjoy who may have an

On Wed, 30 May 2012 10:04:50 -0700 Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > Originally on llvm-commits. > > On May 30, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > >> This is probably fine for now. It's a relatively safe use of > >> SCEVExpander and the least effort approach, but generally I would > >> like to encourage