similar to: Can I delete a function argument and its corresponding code from a file

It seems the same bug is there if we do pointer swapping with selects. Do you agree? (see example below) define void @f() { entry: %a1 = alloca float, align 4 %a2 = alloca float, align 4 br label %loop end: ret void loop: %phi = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ 1, %loop ] %select_cond = icmp eq i32 %phi, 0 %ptr1 = select i1 %select_cond, float* %a1, float* %a2 %ptr2 = select i1

Hi Johannes, I followed your advice and got the same result: NoAlias and No dependence. Would you say AA is faulty for saying NoAlias or DA is faulty for saying no dependence? Or both? (revised example below) Thanks! define float @f() { entry: %g = alloca float, align 4 %h = alloca float, align 4 br label %for.body for.cond.cleanup: ; preds = %for.body

Alias analysis is figuring out the relationship between two pointer expressions, at some location in the program. At a given point in the program, do two expressions always refer to the same location? At a given point in the program, do two expressions never refer to the same location? AliasAnalysis::alias() doesn't explicitly take a "point" in the program because we don't

Jay, Hiroshi, did [0] resolve the problem you've seen. [0] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/d23c61490c282a7a8f29aaa5c021cbfdaf87fb6f On 12/10, Doerfert, Johannes wrote: > I think the problem is that only clang has a dependence on the new > library and when you check LLVM without building clang it does not exist > yet. I will commit a LLVM patch today that will cause LLVM

So, there will be an LLVM Social in the Chicago area. We know what you now think, an LLVM Social in Chicagoland? Finally! If you are interested in showing up __ for the first meeting __, use the doodle [0] to indicate your preferred dates. Note that the weekend was chosen for the first meeting only. We expect to discuss future meeting details (times, locations, style, ...) at this first

It is my actual target architecture ________________________________ From: Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 1:30 PM To: J S Cc: via llvm-dev Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Generating object files more efficiently I copied "-march=XYZ" from your original email, you have to replace it with your actual target architecture or simply drop it.

Oh. So it wasn't just the memory location size that was incorrect on those aliasing checks. I took a look at the tests and it appears that the alias call also catches some cases of restrict/noalias attributes, along with the tbaa info. My first idea of constructing an alias call with no Ptr's but valid tbaa info won't catch that at least. I will create a bug report and try and see if

Hello llvm-dev, I would appreciate your feedback on the following problem. We're trying to determine whether this is a bug in LLVM or not. In the IR snippet below, we have two pointers (p and q) which initially point to two completely non-overlapping locations. Then, on every iteration of a loop, we swap the pointers and load from the first, followed by a store to the second. 1) AA says the

Hi all, I have the following C code: #include<stdio.h> int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { printf("%s\n", argv[0]); return argc; } that generates the following IR for the main function: ; Function Attrs: noinline nounwind optnone uwtable define i32 @main(i32, i8**) #0 { %3 = alloca i32, align 4 %4 = alloca i32, align 4 %5 = alloca i8**, align 8 store i32 0, i32*

Johannes, did you try it on AMD GPUs? If not, I think it might be early to claim it as a general interface for NVidia/AMD GPUs. I'm ok, if you want tointroduce a basic class for the GPU-specific codegen, but it must be done step-by-step and thoroughly tested and reviewed. Theremightbe some parts, common with NVPTX codegen. You can put the commonfunctions into a base class and remove them from

Currently I compile my C code in 2 steps in order to generate .o files clang -emit-llvm -c foo.c -o foo.bc llc -march=XYZ foo.bc -filetype=obj Is there a way to generate either .o or .elf files in just 1 command? Thanks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190323/da9b3c18/attachment.html>

Johannes, I tried the last one and it gave me this: error: unknown target CPU 'XYZ' note: valid target CPU values are: nocona, core2, penryn, bonnell, atom, silvermont, slm, goldmont, goldmont-plus, tremont, nehalem, corei7, westmere, sandybridge, corei7-avx, ivybridge, core-avx-i, haswell, core-avx2, broadwell, skylake, skylake-avx512, skx, cascadelake,

Hi, All good points and jokes in your email :) My final goal is the get the value of %8 at runtime. So considering the program is called argv I would like to execute something like ./argv 22 and get the value of argv[0]. Is it possible? So far I have the address where the parameter at position 0 in store but I'd like to read the value and print it. I hope it is clear now Thanks again On

Hello! My name is Emanuel and I am an undergraduate student from Brazil (at the University of São Paulo) wanting to participate in this years GSoC on LLVM. Specifically, on the "Improve parallelism-aware analyses and optimizations" project. I currently do research on autotuning of LLVM IR optimization passes and I am sitting for a class about parallel computing, but I have been studying

This seems to be happening to me, too. I think this happens for me on "ninja check-llvm" in a clean build. Let me know if you need more info. On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 2:22 PM Doerfert, Johannes via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Jay, > > I am not sure why this happens. > Can you give me some information so I can reproduce it: > Is this happens

1. You don't need to implement everything in a single patch. The development process is a step-by-step process, when you commit something in small pieces. The code must nit be fully functional, you may start from some basic features. Currently it is very hard to review. 2. I rather doubt that it can be reused without changes for AMD etc., especially without being fully tested. The only tested

I don't know where it comes from, currently there is just 2 patches with the new functionality : mapper implementation in clang and in the runtime. Plus the patch for unified memory. Best regards, Alexey Bataev > 6 июня 2019 г., в 19:03, Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> написал(а): > >> On 06/06, Alexey Bataev via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hmm, it is interesting.

-march for clang and -march for llc do different things unfortunately. -march for clang at least on x86 is the same as -mcpu in llc. Which is an artifact of gcc compatibility. ~Craig On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 1:40 PM Doerfert, Johannes via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Oh, my bad. > > > Idk why llc seems to know that architecture but clang does not. > >

Yes, I understand. I just don't understand why there are 15 review links. as to the format of the list, we previously had a list of feature for 4.5 (before it was fully supported), we can reuse this old format. Best regards, Alexey Bataev > 6 июня 2019 г., в 19:12, Narayanaswamy, Ravi <ravi.narayanaswamy at intel.com> написал(а): > > Alexey, > Johannes want to put all

Greetings everyone, I am Abhay Raj Singh, a 2nd-year student at NIT Hamirpur, Bharat(India). I am very interested in the project titled "Improve parallelism-aware analyses and optimizations" I would like to apologize for contacting so late I had midterm examination, finished recently. I have taken a course on OpenMP from YouTube which was supported by Intel I have ~4-5 years of