similar to: Differential: accepted but not closed revisions

Hello, Is there a analysis pass which calculates the ModRefBehaviours OnlyReadsPointerArguments and OnlyAccessesPointerArguments? I tried to find one but so far I only saw that different AA's return OnlyReadsMemory and DoesNotAccessMemory if the readonly and readnone attributes are set. Best regards and thanks in advance, Johannes -- Johannes Doerfert Researcher / PhD Student

Registered, thx! On 03/13, Renato Golin wrote: > On 13 March 2017 at 13:01, Tobias Grosser <tobias.grosser at inf.ethz.ch> wrote: > > I am happy to merge these things. > > Ok. We'll need a big table. :) -- Johannes Doerfert Researcher / PhD Student Compiler Design Lab (Prof. Hack) Saarland Informatics Campus, Germany Building E1.3, Room 4.31 Tel. +49 (0)681

Hi Johannes, Actually, I'm working in the same scenario, i.e. configure + make of a benchmark/program/library like you said. I've got your point of using this script as a replacement to generate .bc files instead of a executable. That's truly helpful and has already answered my original question. Now I'm actually moving a step further. Take the same example in your reply, say, if

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 01/11, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev wrote: > > > > def int_experimental_directive : Intrinsic<[], [llvm_metadata_ty], > > [IntrArgMemOnly], > > "llvm.experimental.directive">; > > > > def int_experimental_dir_qual : Intrinsic<[], [llvm_metadata_ty], > > [IntrArgMemOnly], > >

Hi Johannes, By following your directions, I can use your script as is to produce the .bc file now. Here's my command line for compiling s_sin.c into s_sin.bc file and the output: command line: ~/Downloads/newlib-2.1.0/newlib/libm/mathfp » python ~/llvm_link.py s_sin.c -I../common/ -I../../libc/include/ -o s_sin.bc output: Initiate CLANG (/path-to-clang): Options: 's_sin.c

".... 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

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

[Apologies if you received this email twice, the first time I sent it from the wrong email account] Hi all, some time ago Intel proposed a set of minimal IR extensions to improve the support of OpenMP in LLVM [1][2]. I wonder if there has been any progress on this and if it is going to be upstreamed. Also the previous proposal[2] and communications to the llvm-dev[3] mention the following

<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,

Hello, I thought about doing a dynamic detection of signed integer overflow for OpenCL kernels based on the generated LLVM IR. A problem seems to be that the LLVM IR does not differentiate between signed and unsigned types in general. But for instance for additions it should be possible to use the "nsw" flag as indicator that the operations involves signed types. Is this a legal

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

Hey, I was just informed that my ScalarEvolution patch failed the lld tests on x86_64-freebsd, however on my machine x86_64-linux all tests (llvm+lld) pass for a debug as well as a release build. Furthermore, I'm a bit confused about the error message just before the segfault happens: "Unable to find lib.exe in PATH" Could somebody help me track down the problem? Thanks in

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 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

> On Mar 8, 2017, at 10:55 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 8, 2017, at 5:36 AM, Johannes Doerfert <doerfert at cs.uni-saarland.de> wrote: >> >> <mehdi.amini at apple.com>, >> Bcc: >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC][PIR] Parallel LLVM IR -- Stage 0 -- IR extension >> Reply-To: >>

On 03/08/2017 12:44 PM, Johannes Doerfert wrote: > I don't know who pointed it out first but Mehdi made me aware of it at > CGO. I try to explain it shortly. > > Given the following situation (in pseudo code): > > alloc A[100]; > parallel_for(i = 0; i < 100; i++) > A[i] = f(i); > > acc = 1; > for(i = 0; i < 100; i++) > acc = acc *

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.

I assume the referring case is something like below, right? #pragma omp parallel num_threads(n) { #pragma omp critical { x = x + 1; } } If that is the case, the programmer is already writing the code that is not "serial equivalent". Our representation for parallelizer is %t = @llvm.region.entry()["omp.parallel"(),

The IR-region annotation we proposed is as below, there is no @llvm.parallel.for.iterator()..... There is no change to loop CFG. alloc A[100]; %t = call token @llvm.region.entry()["parallel.for"()] for(i = 0; i < 100; i++) { a[i] = f(i); } @llvm.region.exit(%t)() ["end.parallel.for"()] Xinmin -----Original Message----- From: Johannes Doerfert