similar to: [SCEV] inconsistent operand ordering

Thanks for fixing this Sanjoy! I do have a few questions/suggestions on the fix if you don't mind. 1) Would this work correctly if the values are call instructions with no operands, like this- %a = foo() %b = bar() 2) From the way this function is set up, it looks like the emphasis is on saving compile time by trading off robustness. Is compile time such a big concern here that we want to

Here is original C code: void topup(int a[], unsigned long i) { for (; i < 16; i++) { a[i] = 1; } } Here is the IR before the pass where I expect SCEV to return trip-count value ; Function Attrs: nofree norecurse nounwind uwtable writeonly define dso_local void @topup(i32* nocapture %a, i64 %i) local_unnamed_addr #0 { entry: %cmp3 = icmp ult i64 %i, 16 br i1

Hello, I am first time paying with SCEV codebase. I am trying to find out why ScalarEvolution is not able to give correct back edge taken count for an expression. So in my case flow reaches to howFarToZero() and in that function, I have following expressions as SCEV Start = (15 + (-1 * %i) (which is set to Distance SCEV) Step = 1 now, first of all, should I expect Start as ConstantSCEV (15)

Hi, When I write various test cases and explore how they're handled by the code in LoopDependenceAnalysis::analysePair, I'm surprised. This loop collects pairs of subscripts from the source and destination refs. * // Collect GEP operand pairs (FIXME: use GetGEPOperands from BasicAA), adding* * // trailing zeroes to the smaller GEP, if needed.* * GEPOpdsTy destOpds, srcOpds;* *

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:36 AM, James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk> wrote: > Hi, > > Coremark really isn't a good enough test - have you run the LLVM test suite > with this patch, and what were the performance differences? For the test suite single source benches, the 235 tests improved performance, 2 regressed and 705 were unchanged. That seems very optimistic.

Hi Anastasiya, If it fits you use case, you can consider walking the loop header and calling getSCEV() on all of the PHI nodes in the header. This will give you a SCEV* which should be easier to analyze than manually inspecting PHI cycles. Thanks! -- Sanjoy On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Michael Kruse via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > 2017-07-25 19:32 GMT+02:00

How do you generate a SCEVAddRecExpr from a SCEV? It tried dyn_casting and it seems like that the SCEV returned by getSCEV is not a SCEVAddRecExpr. Thanks On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 9/30/2016 12:16 PM, Charith Mendis via llvm-dev wrote: > >> >> Hi all, >> >> What is the best way to get the symbolic

Hi Nadav, Arnold, I managed to find some time to work on the pointer reduction, and I got a patch that can make "canVectorize()" pass. Basically what I do is to teach AddReductionVar() about pointers, saying they don't really have an exit instructions, and that (maybe) the final store is a good candidate (is it?). This makes it recognize the writes and reads, but then

Hi Sanjoy, Thanks for investigating the issue! I am more interested in getting the underlying problem fixed rather than making this particular test case work. I think I have more test cases where this problem crops up. I would any day prefer consistent results over compile time savings which can lead to inconsistencies. These inconsistencies require significant developer time to analyze and fix

Hi all, I'm looking into resolving a FIXME in the LoopDataPrefetch (and FalkorMarkStridedAccesses) pass by marking both of these passes as preserving the ScalarEvolution analysis. Unfortunately, when this change is made, LSR will generate different code. One of the root causes seems to be that SCEV will return different nsw/nuw flags for the same Value, depending on what order the

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Jake VanAdrighem <jvanadrighem at gmail.com> wrote: > Do you have some specific performance measurements? Averaging 4 runs of 10000 iterations each of Coremark on my X86_64 desktop showed: -O2 performance: +2.9% faster with the L.E.V. pass -Os size: 1.5% smaller with the L.E.V. pass In the case of Coremark, the benefit comes mainly from the matrix

On 8/8/2017 1:37 PM, Friedman, Eli wrote: > On 8/8/2017 10:22 AM, Geoff Berry via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I'm looking into resolving a FIXME in the LoopDataPrefetch (and FalkorMarkStridedAccesses) pass by marking both of these passes as preserving the ScalarEvolution analysis. Unfortunately, when this change is made, LSR will generate different code. One of the

----- 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

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

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > To: "Hyojin Sung" <hsung at us.ibm.com>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 7:34:54 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Improving loop vectorizer support for loops > with a volatile iteration variable > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:55 PM Hyojin Sung

Hi, InstCombine canonicalizes index operands (unless they are into struct types) to pointer size. The comment says: "If we are using a wider index than needed for this platform, shrink it to what we need. If narrower, sign-extend it to what we need. This explicit cast can make subsequent optimizations more obvious.". For our architecture, the canonicalization is a bit

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I started looking at the log files that you attached, and I'm confused. > The code that is supposedly causing the perf regression is created by the > loop vectorizer, right? Except the bad code is not in the "vector.body", so > is there something peculiar about

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >> Should we try the patch in it's current location, namely after LSR? > > Sure; post the patch as you have it so we can look at what's going on. > http://reviews.llvm.org/D12494 One particular point: The algorithm checks that SCEV's are equal when their raw pointers are equal. Is

----- 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 ----- > >

On some targets with limited addressing modes, getting that 64-bit relocatable but loop-invariant value into a register requires several instructions. I'd like those several instruction outside the loop, where they belong. Yes, my experience is that something (I assume instcombine) recanonicalizes. Thanks, Preston On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at