similar to: Reassociation is blocking a vectorization

Hi Andrew, The issue below refers to LSR, so I'll appreciate your feedback. It also refers to instruction combining and might impact backends other than X86, so if you know of others that might be interested you are more than welcome to add them. Thanks, Anat _____________________________________________ From: Shemer, Anat Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 15:07 To: 'llvmdev at

Hi all, One of the reasons the Livermore Loops couldn't be vectorized is that it was using global structures to hold the arrays. Today, I'm investigating why is that so and how to fix it. My investigation brought me to LoopVectorizationLegality::canVectorizeMemory(): if (WriteObjects.count(*it)) { DEBUG(dbgs() << "LV: Found a possible read/write reorder:"

Hi, Look at the following code: Look at the following C code seqence: unsigned char mainGtU ( unsigned int i1, unsigned int i2, unsigned char* block) { unsigned char c1, c2; c1 = block[i1]; c2 = block[i2]; if (c1 != c2) return (c1 > c2); i1++; i2++; c1 = block[i1]; c2 = block[i2]; if (c1 != c2) return (c1 > c2); i1++; i2++; .. ..

Hello All, I have a question about a May-alias case. Let's look at one simple C example. char *buf[4]; char c; void test(int idx) {   char *a = buf[3 - idx];   char *b = buf[idx];   *a = *b;   c++;   *a = *b; } We can imagine the second "*a = *b" could be removed. Let's look at the IR snippet with -O3 for above example.   1 define void @test(i32 %idx) {   2 entry:  

Hi, LLVM community: I found basicaa seems not to tell must-not-alias for __restrict__ arguments in c/c++. It only compares two pointers and the underlying objects they point to. I wonder how clang does alias analysis for c/c++ keyword restrict. let assume we compile the following code: $cat myalias.cc float foo(float * __restrict__ v0, float * __restrict__ v1, float * __restrict__ v2, float *

If I understand you correctly, conceptually you want two different objects to be returned for Foo.bl and Foo.al? Here is my take on this (take this with a grain of salt, Dan is the expert on this): http://llvm.org/docs/GetElementPtr.html#what-happens-if-an-array-index-is-out-of-bounds LLVM's semantic allows for arrays to be accessed out of bounds - this allows you to walk from the first

Hi Daniel, I see your point about LLVM and C/C++ type agnostic. I think TBAA was invented to partially cover this gap and give optimization opportunities when LLVM types are not sufficient but C/C++ types have required information. What do you think about following example: struct S { int a[10]; int b; }; int foo(struct S *ps, int i) { ps->a[i] = 1; ps->b = 2; return

Hi, Your problem is that the function arguments, which are makes as noalias, are not being directly used as the base objects of the array accesses: > %v0.addr = alloca float*, align 8 > %v1.addr = alloca float*, align 8 > %v2.addr = alloca float*, align 8 > %t.addr = alloca float*, align 8 ... > store float* %v0, float** %v0.addr, align 8 > store float* %v1, float** %v1.addr,

Verifying function running passes ... LV: Checking a loop in "bar" LV: Found a loop: L0 LV: Found an induction variable. LV: We need to do 0 pointer comparisons. LV: Checking memory dependencies LV: Bad stride - Not an AddRecExpr pointer %13 = getelementptr float* %arg2, i32 %1 SCEV: ((4 * (sext i32 {(256 + %arg0),+,1}<nw><%L0> to i64)) + %arg2) LV: Src Scev: {((4 * (sext

Frank, It looks like the loop vectorizer is unable to tell that the two stores in your code never overlap. This is probably because of the sign-extend in your code. Can you extend the indices to 64bit ? Thanks, Nadav On Oct 28, 2013, at 1:38 PM, Frank Winter <fwinter at jlab.org> wrote: > Verifying function > running passes ... > LV: Checking a loop in "bar" > LV:

Jeroen, thank you for very useful link with the context. Indeed union cases are very complicated and I see places in code when TBAA gives up. Daniel, I completely agree that TBAA has limited power and can solve relatively simple cases only. So anything more complicated that involves intermediate variables that points to struct or array elements cannot be solved by TBAA alone. Differentiating

> -----Original Message----- > From: Michele Scandale [mailto:michele.scandale at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 6:29 AM > To: Micah Villmow > Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Address space extension > > On 08/10/2013 02:47 PM, Micah Villmow wrote: > > Michele, > > The information you are trying to gather is fundamentally

Dear All, I am glad to be part of GSoC 2016 with LLVM organization. I am a first year PhD student at IIT Hyderabad, India and my research area is compiler optimizations using polyhedral model. My GSoC 2016 project is to implement Polly as an Analysis pass in LLVM [1]. We have a discussion on Polly-dev mailing list [2] on taking a better approach to implement this project. Based upon this

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

I would like to know whether there is a faster way to do the below operation (updating vec1). My objective is to update the elements of a vector (vec1), where a particular element i is dependent on the previous one. I need to do this on vectors that are 1 million or longer and need to repeat that process several hundred times. The for loop works but is slow. If there is a faster way, please let

Hello R-users, I need to create a vector inserting an 1 after each value of another vector. For example: vec1<-c(2,3,4) I need to create a vector with the values 2,1,3,1,4 Does anyone know how create this vector without loops (vec1 could have 1000 elements) Thank you, Juan -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read

HI Elisa, You could use ?cut() vec1<-c(33,18,13,47,30,10,6,21,39,25,40,29,14,16,44,1,41,4,15,20,46,32,38,5,31,12,48,27,36,24,34,2,35,11,42,9,8,7,26,22,43,17,19,28,23,3,49,37,50,45) label1<-unlist(lapply(mapply(c,lapply(seq(0,45,5),function(x) x),lapply(seq(5,50,5),function(x) x),SIMPLIFY=FALSE),function(i) paste(i[1],"<x<=",i[2],sep="")))

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.

Hi, all I found in some cases the int variable get promoted to i64, although I think it should i32. I use the online demo (http://llvm.org/demo). And below is the test case. ------------- test case ------------- int test(int x[], int y[], int n) { int i = 0; int sum = 0; for ( ; i < n; i++) { sum += x[i] * y[i]; } return sum; } ------------------------------------- No

This can be vectorized. Try ix <- seq_along(vec2) S_diff2 <- sapply(seq_len(N1-(N2-1)*ratio_sampling), \(j) sum((vec1[(ix-1)*ratio_sampling+j] - vec2[ix])**2)) On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 11:27?AM Laurent Rhelp <laurentRHelp at free.fr> wrote: > > Dear RHelp-list, > > I try to use the package comprehenr to replace a for loop by a list > comprehension. > > I