similar to: SCEV related question

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

Hi, I noticed an inconsistency in how ScalarEvolution orders instruction operands. This inconsistency can result in creation of separate (%a * %b) and (%b * %a) SCEVs as demonstrated by the example IR below (attached as gep-phi.ll)- target datalayout = "e-m:e-p:32:32-f64:32:64-f80:32-n8:16:32-S128" define void @foo(i8* nocapture %arr, i32 %n, i32* %A, i32* %B) local_unnamed_addr {

Hi! I would appreciate some feedback from someone with experience in SCEV/SE. D39346 tries to fix an issue in LV (PR34965) that exposes a limitation in SCEV/SE. The best solution to the LV issue might not be a fix at SCEV/SE level but we may want to report/address SCEV/SE limitation as well. For the snippet below, LV expects SE to return a SCEVAddRecExpr for %21. However, SE returns ((4 * (zext

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com > wrote: > Hi Piotr, > > On March 31, 2017 at 9:07:42 AM, Piotr Padlewski > (piotr.padlewski at gmail.com) wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have a question about dereferenceable metadata on load instruction. I > > have a patch (https://reviews.llvm.org/D31539) for LICM that hoists >

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 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.

Thanks for the feedback, Sanjoy. > SCEV is fairly conservative around PHI nodes that aren't recurrences and aren't obviously equivalent to a min-max branch-phi idiom. Is that the limitation you're running into here? Yes, that's exactly the problem. The problematic PHI nodes (%bc.resume.val and %bc.resume.val1) aren't either recurrences or related to min-max idioms. I

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

Hello all, I’m pretty new to LLVM. I'm writing a pass for loop optimization. I clone and rearrange loops, setting the cloned loop as the original loop’s parent. This can be done multiple times, until there is no more work to do. The trouble is, after the first time I do this, the cloned loop's SCEVs become unknown types when they should be AddRecExpr. If I re-run the whole pass on the

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 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

Is that why we do not deduce +<nsw> from "add nsw" either? Is that an intrinsic limitation of creating a context-invariant expressions from a Value* or is that a limitation of our implementation (our unification not considering the nsw flags)? On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 12:39 PM Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 8/15/2018 12:21 PM, Alexandre Isoard via

Hello, If I run clang on the following code: void func(unsigned n) { > for (unsigned long x = 1; x < n; ++x) > dummy(x); > } I get the following llvm ir: define void @func(i32 %n) { > entry: > %conv = zext i32 %n to i64 > %cmp5 = icmp ugt i32 %n, 1 > br i1 %cmp5, label %for.body, label %for.cond.cleanup > for.cond.cleanup:

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

Hello, I was doing some experiments with SCEV and especially the loop trip count. Sorry for the dumb question, what is the easiest way to dump SCEV analysis results on a .bc file? On a side note, I wanted to see if we could optimize this function: unsigned long kernel(long w, long h, long d) { unsigned long count = 0; for(int i = 0; i < w; ++i) for(int j = i; j < h; ++j) for(int k = j; k

Andy, et al., If I start with C code like this: void foo(long k, int * restrict a, int * restrict b, int * restrict c) { if (k > 0) { for (int i = 0; i < 2047; i++) { a[i] = a[i + k] + b[i] * c[i]; } } } Clang -O3 will produce code like this: entry: %cmp = icmp sgt i64 %k, 0 br i1 %cmp, label %for.body.preheader, label %if.end for.body.preheader: br label

I'm not sure I understand the poison/undef/UB distinctions. But on this example: define i32 @func(i1 zeroext %b, i32 %x, i32 %y) { > entry: > %adds = add nsw i32 %x, %y > %addu = add nuw i32 %x, %y > %cond = select i1 %b, i32 %adds, i32 %addu > ret i32 %cond > } It is important to not propagate the nsw/nuw between the two SCEV expressions (which unification would

Ok. To go back to the original issue, would it be meaningful to add a SCEVUMax(0, BTC) on the final BTC computed by SCEV? So that it does not use "negative values"? On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 2:40 PM Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 8/15/2018 2:27 PM, Alexandre Isoard wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand the poison/undef/UB distinctions. >

Using LLVM ToT and Hal's helpful slide deck [1], I've been trying to use `llvm.assume` to communicate pointer alignment guarantees to vector load and store instructions. For example, in [2] %5 and %9 are guaranteed to be 32-byte aligned. However, if I run this IR through `opt -O3 -datalayout -S`, the vectorized loads and stores are still 1-byte aligned [3]. What's going wrong? Do I

----- 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