similar to: Differentiate array access at IR level

Hi all, I am trying to use the dependence analyzer in a pass that I am writing and I was surprised to see an incorrect behavior when I try to query DependenceInfo for dependences between instructions. Specifically, if the two instructions are loads/stores accessing an array in a loop, the depend() method would return a dependence regardless of the order of instructions specified. (i.e. if the two

As far Am Mi., 18. März 2020 um 11:34 Uhr schrieb Chawla, Pankaj <pankaj.chawla at intel.com>: > >> There seems to be a bug in DI, see Felipe's answer. > Maybe I missed something. There seems to be no resolution to the problem. How can DA fix this without help from alias analysis? DependenceInfo is not using the AA interface correctly. Either DI has to be fixed, or another

Hi folks, Moving the discussion to llvm.dev. None of the changes we talked earlier help. Find attached the C source code that you can use to reproduce the issue. clang --target=aarch64-linux-gnu -c -mcpu=cortex-a57 -Ofast -fno-math-errno test.c -S -o test.s -mllvm -debug-only=licm LICM hoisting to while.body.lr.ph: %21 = load double** %arrayidx8, align 8, !tbaa !5 LICM hoisting to

Hi, I'm not sure what the expected behavior of calling a bitcasted function is. Suppose you have a case like this (which you get on the source level from attribute alias): @alias_f32 = alias bitcast (i32 (i32)* @func_i32 to float (float)*) define internal i32 @func_i32(i32 %v) noinline nounwind { entry: ret i32 %v } define void @bitcast_alias_scalar(float* noalias %source, float* noalias

Can you send me actual LLVM IR or a preprocessed source from using -E? I don't have a machine handy that has headers that target that arch. On Tue Jan 13 2015 at 4:33:29 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > Anything other than noalias or mustalias should be getting passed down the > stack, so either that is not happening or CFL aa is giving better answers > and

Am Mi., 18. März 2020 um 18:15 Uhr schrieb Chawla, Pankaj <pankaj.chawla at intel.com>: > > >> DependenceInfo is not using the AA interface correctly. Either DI has to be fixed, or another method added to AA that gives additional guarantees. Please see the bug report for details. > > Thanks for updating the bug report but GetUnderlyingObject() doesn't help in this case.

Inline - George > On Jan 14, 2015, at 10:49 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote: >>> On 13 January 2015 at 22:11, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: >>> This is caused by CFLAA returning PartialAlias for a query that BasicAA can

On 03/23, Hongbin Zheng wrote: > Hi Johannes, > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Johannes Doerfert < > doerfert at cs.uni-saarland.de> wrote: > > > Hey Utpal, > > > > First of, I think you made nice process here and have some very good > > ideas of what we could do in the future. > > > > [NOTE: I CC'ed some people that have shown

Hey Utpal, First of, I think you made nice process here and have some very good ideas of what we could do in the future. [NOTE: I CC'ed some people that have shown interest in this topic but I might have forgotten some, therefor I also added the llvm-dev list.] For the upcoming GSoC proposal we should slow down a little bit and reevaluate our goals. After talking to a couple of LLVM and

On 13 January 2015 at 22:11, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > This is caused by CFLAA returning PartialAlias for a query that BasicAA > can prove is NoAlias. > One of them is wrong. Which one? I'm not sure from your description that this is a chaining issue. PartialAlias doesn't chain and isn't supposed to, it's a final answer just like NoAlias and

Oh, sorry, i didn't rebase it when i changed the fix, you would have had to apply the first on top of the second. Here is one against HEAD On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Ana Pazos <apazos at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Daniel, your patch does not apply cleanly. Are you on the tip? > > The code I see there is no line if (QueryResult == MayAlias|| QueryResult == PartialAlias)

Hi Nadav, Thanks for the quick reply !! Ok, so as of now we are lacking capability to handle flat large reductions. I did go through function vectorizeChainsInBlock() (line number 2862). In this function, we try to vectorize if we have phi nodes in the IR (several if's check for phi nodes) i.e we try to construct tree that starts at chains. Any pointers on how to join multiple trees? I

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

If there are many character variables,and I want to get the mosaic plot of every pair of each variable,how to do then? If the variables are numeric, I can use pairs to get paired scatter plot. But as to the character variables, how to get the "paired mosaic plot"? Many thanks. -- QQ: 1733768559 At 2015-02-07 17:04:26,"Jim Lemon" <drjimlemon at gmail.com>

Hi Arnold, Thanks for your reply. I tried test case as suggested by you. *void foo(int *a, int *sum) {*sum = a[0]+a[1]+a[2]+a[3]+a[4]+a[5]+a[6]+a[7]+a[8]+a[9]+a[10]+a[11]+a[12]+a[13]+a[14]+a[15];}* so that it has a 'store' in its IR. *IR before vectorization :*target datalayout = "e-m:e-p:32:32-f64:32:64-f80:32-n8:16:32-S128" target triple =

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 there, I am a newbie of llvm and here is my question situation. Assume that there is a function F which contains a loop named L, a array b[100]. I want to collect the statistical information of array index operation op(i) (take add and mul simply) of i in the loop L. Pseudocode lists below. void F(arg1, arg2){ int b[100]; for(int i=0; i<n; i++){ op1(i); op2(i);

more info just 1 server webserver + appserver + dbserver On 9/14/07, Yan Meng <dreamwords at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, Guys > > Our team is running a web2.0 finance site in China > > http://www.caibangzi.com/ > > We use APACHE + mod_proxy_balancer + mongrel to deploy our application, it > workd super in the past few monthes. > > However, just from last

Hi Johannes, On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Johannes Doerfert < doerfert at cs.uni-saarland.de> wrote: > Hey Utpal, > > First of, I think you made nice process here and have some very good > ideas of what we could do in the future. > > [NOTE: I CC'ed some people that have shown interest in this topic but I > might have forgotten some, therefor I also added the

Hi, I am trying to understand LLVM vectorization implementation and was looking into both loop and SLP vectorization. test case 1: *int foo(int *a) {int sum = 0,i;for(i=0; i<16; i++) sum += a[i];return sum;}* This code is vectorized by loop vectorizer where we calculate scalar loop cost as 4 and vector loop cost as 2. Since vector loop cost is less and above reduction is legal to