similar to: valid BasicAA behavior?

My understanding is that alias analysis returns results in the function scope, not in loop scope. Since both the phis access both global arrays, that should results in BasicAA conservatively returning MayAlias. I debugged this a little bit and narrowed it down to the section of the code in BasicAAResult::aliasPHI() which has this comment- // Analyse the PHIs' inputs under the assumption

Hi Hal, In that case what is the best way to query whether there is a loop carried dependence between B[j] and A[j] at i-loop level? We were operating under the assumption of 'conservatively correct' behavior of alias analysis in the function scope? Thanks, Pankaj From: Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 11:50 AM To: Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at

AliasAnalysis and dependence analysis answer different problems. AA check whether two memory ranges accessed at the same time (i.e. in the same iteration) do not overlap. DI checks when two accesses, not necessarily executed in the same iteration, do overlap. DI makes use of AA in verifying that the base pointer (with unknown size), at the beginning of the loop, themselves do not overlap. If they

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.

Am Di., 17. März 2020 um 16:56 Uhr schrieb Chawla, Pankaj via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > All I am expecting from DA is a direction vector containing (*). There seems to be a bug in DI, see Felipe's answer. > I think the main problem is that currently there is no exact way DA can query AliasAnalysis in a ‘conservatively correct’ manner. > > Using UnknownSize

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 Sanjoy, SCEV is behaving inconsistently when forming SCEV for this zext instruction in the attached test case- %conv5 = zext i32 %dec to i64 If we request a SCEV for the instruction, it returns- (zext i32 {{-1,+,1}<nw><%for.body>,+,-1}<nw><%for.body7> to i64) This can be seen by invoking- $ opt -analyze -scalar-evolution inconsistent-scev-zext.ll But when computing

Hi, +CC Max, Serguei This looks like a textbook case of why caching is hard. We first call getZeroExtendExpr on %dec, and this call does end up returning an add rec. However, in the process of simplifying the zext, it also calls into isLoopBackedgeGuardedByCond which in turn calls getZeroExtendExpr(%dec) again. However, this second (recursive) time, we don't simplify the zext and cache a

Hi all, It looks like the induction variable simplification pass prefers doing a zero-extension to compute the wider trip count of loops when extending the IV. This can sometimes result in loss of information making ScalarEvolution's analysis conservative which can lead to missed performance opportunities. For example, consider this loopnest- int i, j; for(i=0; i< 40; i++) for(j=0;

BasicAA treats it conservatively if used on its own. It will return mayalias for the two pointers. TBAA operates based on the guarantee that pointers to different types cannot alias (think C's strict aliasing rules). Therein lies its power but also its danger, that is, nothing prevents the programmer to write code that violates these rules (That's why we have -fno-strict-aliasing). So

Hi Sanjoy, Thanks for the reply! Your approach sounds good to me! I think 1) is legal as address wraparound in unsigned range doesn't make sense given a positive offset, but I am not sure. I think umax will not be added if we can prove the predicate as known. I am not sure whether umax will get simplified if we add nuw to the expressions. -Pankaj -----Original Message----- From: Sanjoy

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Arnold Schwaighofer > Subject: [LLVMdev] inttoptr and basicaa > BasicAA treats it conservatively if used on its own. It will return mayalias > for the two pointers. > TBAA operates based on the guarantee that pointers to different types cannot > alias (think C's strict

[+llvmdev] Hi George, You're right, these tests are broken, and have been for a long time. As it turns out, at least in terms of the 2003-12-11-ConstExprGEP.ll test, this is related to a case we've been discussing in another thread ("Basic AliasAnalysis: Can GEPs with the same base but different constant indices into a struct alias?"). It seems like, to some extent, we used to

This sounds fine to me (and sorry for the delay!). -- Sanjoy On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Chawla, Pankaj <pankaj.chawla at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Sanjoy, > > So what is the verdict on this issue? > > Thanks, > Pankaj > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chawla, Pankaj > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 11:12 AM > To: Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at

Hi Pankaj, On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Chawla, Pankaj <pankaj.chawla at intel.com> wrote: > Thanks for the reply! > Would it be possible for you to implement this? I don't have cycles for this right now, but if you file a bug I can give this a shot when I have time later. Even in the best case this will have to at least wait until end of April because I'm leaving for a

Hi Pankaj, On April 14, 2017 at 4:55:16 PM, Chawla, Pankaj (pankaj.chawla at intel.com) wrote: > I have attached the IR I got by compiling with -O2. This is just before we widen the IV. Thanks! > To get the backedge taken count info I ran indvars on it and then replaced zext with sext. > > I think regardless of where we decide to add this transformation in the pipeline, it should

Thanks for the suggestion but datalayout info did not solve the problem! -Pankaj -----Original Message----- From: Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 5:26 PM To: Chawla, Pankaj <pankaj.chawla at intel.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] missing simplification in ScalarEvolution? Try adding a datalayout with pointer size

Hi Sanjoy, Thanks for the reply! Would it be possible for you to implement this? You know the codebase better than I do. Thanks, Pankaj -----Original Message----- From: Sanjoy Das [mailto:sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 1:34 PM To: Chawla, Pankaj <pankaj.chawla at intel.com> Cc: Maxim Kazantsev <max.kazantsev at azul.com>; Serguei Katkov

Hi all, I came across the following limitation in our BasicAliasAnalysis. This happens with the following IR pattern: %x = phi [ %incptr, ... ] [ %var, ... ] %incptr = getelementptr %x, 1 We will basically always return MayAlias for %x and any other value because aliasPHI recurses on the first value and gives up. There are, however, many cases where this is too conservative. Take the

Thanks for the helpful reply! I see that we are trying to keep ScalarEvolution stable around instruction ordering. My suggestion would be to not restrict the fix by only recursing on the first operand. By "dominator logic" I meant that if all other 'cheap' checks fail, we should decide by walking the dominator tree to see which instruction's basic block is encountered