similar to: TBAA question

What are you querying the alias analysis on in the above example - between the load and store? How are you creating your MemoryLocation for those too? On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 6:03 AM Venkataramanan Kumar via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Can someone please clarify me on this? > > > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 22:25, Venkataramanan Kumar < >

TBAA Question. Please consider the following test case. ---Snip-- struct B { int b1; int b2; }; struct C { int b1; }; struct A { int a1; struct C SC; int a2; }; int foo1(struct A * Aptr, struct B* Bptr) { int *a = &Aptr->SC.b1; *a=10; Bptr->b1 = 11; return *a; } int foo2(struct A * Aptr, struct B* Bptr) { Aptr->SC.b1=10; Bptr->b1 = 11; return

----Snip-- struct st1{ int a; }; struct st2{ int b; }; struct st { struct st1 obj1; struct st2 obj2; }Obj; int test1(struct st1 * ptr1 , struct st2 * ptr2, struct st2 *ptr3) { ptr1->a = 10; *ptr3 = *ptr2; return ptr1->a; } --Snip--- For the above case GCC is able to store forward the value 10 to the return place. LLVM is not doing this. GCC https://godbolt.org/z/FCjCXy LLVM

Hi, I have the below test case. --snip-- struct st { int a; int b; }; int * ptr; int x,y; void bar(int *x); void foo() { struct st obj; bar(&obj.b); if(x) obj.a =x; else obj.a =y; for (int i=0; i<obj.a;i++) ptr[i]=i; } --snip-- LLVM IR produced at -O3 is shown below. ref: https://godbolt.org/z/WPlmfr --Snip-- %8 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.st,

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 4:58 AM Venkataramanan Kumar < venkataramanan.kumar.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I tired to see when this behavior changed in LLVM. > It seems to start from. > --snip-- > commit 95e5d37d5868ebde2302bc302c1e0af407c5646d > Author: Sebastian Pop <sebpop at gmail.com> > Date: Tue Mar 6 21:55:59 2018 +0000 > > DA: remove

Hi Venkat., Did you make progress with libmvec? Is there a chance that it lands into clang 11? Regards, Alexandre Bique On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 11:50 AM Venkataramanan Kumar <venkataramanan.kumar.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Florian, > > On Tue, 1 Sep, 2020, 3:11 pm Florian Hahn, <florian_hahn at apple.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Sep 1,

Hi, > On Sep 1, 2020, at 10:26, Venkataramanan Kumar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Alexandre, > > On Tue, 1 Sep, 2020, 2:21 pm Alexandre Bique, <bique.alexandre at gmail.com <mailto:bique.alexandre at gmail.com>> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 9:07 AM Venkataramanan Kumar > <venkataramanan.kumar.llvm at gmail.com

Hi, Below is the snippet of LLVM IR code generated by Flang ---snip-- %3 = getelementptr i64, i64* %"a$sd", i64 11, !dbg !16 %4 = bitcast i64* %3 to i32*, !dbg !16 %5 = load i32, i32* %4, align 4, !dbg !16, !tbaa !22 ---snip-- My requirement is for any such LoadInst (example: %5), I want to check if its base GEP (i.e. %3) loads at particular offset (11) from its corresponding

Hi, For the below test case, I need the dependence distance between the array references "a[j][i]" and "a[j-1][i-2]". --Snip-- int a[5][5]; int b[10]; void test() { for (int j=1;j<5;j++) for (int i=2;i<5;i++) { a[j][i] = 3.0; b[i]= a[j-1][i-2] ; } } --Snip-

Hi Micheal, Thanks for the blog post. Just like to point out few things that I thought is related to FP Numerics. LLVM could do some additional transformation with "sqrt" and "division" under fast math on X86 like 1/sqrt(x)* 1/sqrt(x) to 1/x. These are long latency instructions and could get benefit if enabled under unsafe math. Also are we considering doing such FP

On 05/30/2018 06:04 AM, Siddharth Bhat via llvm-dev wrote: > You can run SCEV which will see through bitcasts and GEPs, so it > should give an expression of the form (base + offset) on the pointer > of the load. Specifically, you can use ScalarEvolution to subtract the expression for the base descriptor from the expression for the loaded pointer and see if the result is a SCEVConstant.

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 9:07 AM Venkataramanan Kumar <venkataramanan.kumar.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Alexandre, Hi Venkataramanan, > I am not sure if we can generate vector calls to GlibC libmvec. Is the support for libmvec on the roadmap? If not how to add it? > ./clang --autocomplete=-fveclib= This is amazing, thank you! I think it should be documented in clang auto

You can run SCEV which will see through bitcasts and GEPs, so it should give an expression of the form (base + offset) on the pointer of the load. Cheers siddharth On Wed 30 May, 2018, 16:30 Venkataramanan Kumar via llvm-dev, < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Below is the snippet of LLVM IR code generated by Flang > > ---snip-- > %3 = getelementptr i64,

I've tried to do: clang++ -O3 -march=native -mtune=native \ -Rpass=loop-vectorize,slp-vectorize -Rpass-missed=loop-vectorize,slp-vectorize -Rpass-analysis=loop-vectorize,slp-vectorize \ -ffast-math -ffp-model=fast -ffp-exception-behavior=ignore -ffp-contract=fast \ -c -o vec.o vec.cc But I've got no feedback. -- Alexandre Bique

Hello, Consider these two TBAA access tags: !1 = !{!5, !5, i64 0} !3 = !{!7, !7, i64 0} !5 = !{!"A", !9} !7 = !{!"B", !9} The tag !1 describes an access to an object of type "A" and !3 describes an access to object of type "B". Both the type descriptors, !5 and !7, refer to node !9 as their type group. A definition of that node could look like this:

Hi, I am trying to understand how assume shaped arrays are received and processed in LLVM IR. I am using "flang" for my front end. There seems to be an array descriptor received as implicit argument for every assume shaped array. For my test routine: ---snip-- SUBROUTINE test(a,b,Li,Lj,Istr,Iend,Jstr,Jend) INTEGER, INTENT(IN) :: Li,Lj INTEGER, INTENT(IN) :: Istr, Iend,

On 31/10/17 01:48, Hal Finkel wrote: > On 10/30/2017 04:57 PM, Ivan Kosarev via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Consider these two TBAA access tags: >> >> !1 = !{!5, !5, i64 0} >> !3 = !{!7, !7, i64 0} >> >> !5 = !{!"A", !9} >> !7 = !{!"B", !9} > > I'd find this email less confusing if you'd write out all of

On 07/02/2018 04:33 PM, Saito, Hideki wrote: > >   > > >It may not be a full solution for the problems you're trying to solve > >   > > If we are inventing a new solution, I’d like it also to solve OpenMP > declare simd legalization issue. If a small extension of existing scheme > > works for mathlib only, I’m happy to take that and discuss OpenMP >

It may not be a full solution for the problems you're trying to solve, but I don't know why adding to include/llvm/CodeGen/RuntimeLibcalls.def is a problem in itself. Certainly, it's a mess that could be organized, especially so we're not repeating everything for each data type as we do right now. So yes, I think that would allow us to remove the VecLib mappings because we are

Hi, I have a question about the current definition of TBAA (See [1]). In the LLVM-IR code that we produce, we generate load/stores of struct types. (See [2] and [3] for a godbolt example showing the issue) For following c-alike code: struct S { int dummy; short e, f; } x,y; struct S* p = &x; int foobar() { x.f=42; *p=y; //**** struct copy return x.f; } We produce: