similar to: Legality of transformation

Hi, I would like to run the -O1 pass sequence followed by -reg2mem from an out of tree project which uses llvm. I am using the following code snippet to do so but in some cases, my method is also vectorising the code, which doesn't happen when running the same sequence(-S -O1 -reg2mem) through opt. Can someone please help me find what I am missing? Thanks, Akash. *

Should have changed the subject line... --- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Sergei Larin > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 12:29 PM > To: 'Tobias Grosser' > Cc: 'llvmdev'

On 07/01/2013 09:41 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 1 July 2013 02:02, Chris Matthews <chris.matthews at apple.com> wrote: > >> One thing that LNT is doing to help “smooth” the results for you is by >> presenting the min of the data at a particular revision, which (hopefully) >> is approximating the actual runtime without noise. >> > > That's an

On 1 July 2013 02:02, Chris Matthews <chris.matthews at apple.com> wrote: > One thing that LNT is doing to help “smooth” the results for you is by > presenting the min of the data at a particular revision, which (hopefully) > is approximating the actual runtime without noise. > That's an interesting idea, as you said, if you run multiple times on every revision. On ARM,

Hi all, I have a question regarding dynamic indexing into a vector with GEP. I see that in the ScalarReplAggregates pass in the LLVM 3.2 release the call SROA::isSafeGEP() will now allow alloca scalarization in the case where a GEP index into a vector isn’t a constant. My question is: what is the expected behavior when the index is out of bounds of the vector? Is it undefined? I have an

Hi LLVM developers, We tried to find if there are some passes in LLVM do the opposite of the SROA(Scalar Replacement of Aggregates) pass, but did not find one. Do we have this kind of pass to bring back the structure type? Or this is done separately in any transformation passes? Thanks, Lin-Ya -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

But even for a very simple loop: int test1 (int *x, int *y, int *z, int k) { int sum = 0; for (int i = 10; i < k; i++) { z[i] = x[i] / y[i]; } return sum; } The initial value of induction variable is not zero after compiling with -O3 -mcpu=power8 x.cpp -S -c -emit-llvm -fno-unroll-loops (see bottom of the email for IR) Also I can write somewhat more complicated loop where step

I just subscribed this group. This is my first time to post a question (not sure if this is a right place for discussion) after I have a brief look at LLVM OPT (dev trunk). I would expect loop simplification and induction variable canonicalization pass (IndVarSimplify pass) should be able to convert the following loops into a simple canonical form, i.e., there is a canonical induction variable

Hi Sergei, On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Should have changed the subject line... > > --- > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted > by > The Linux Foundation > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at

Hello, If I run clang on the following code: void func(unsigned n) { > for (unsigned long x = 1; x < n; ++x) > dummy(x); > } I get the following llvm ir: define void @func(i32 %n) { > entry: > %conv = zext i32 %n to i64 > %cmp5 = icmp ugt i32 %n, 1 > br i1 %cmp5, label %for.body, label %for.cond.cleanup > for.cond.cleanup:

Is that why we do not deduce +<nsw> from "add nsw" either? Is that an intrinsic limitation of creating a context-invariant expressions from a Value* or is that a limitation of our implementation (our unification not considering the nsw flags)? On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 12:39 PM Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 8/15/2018 12:21 PM, Alexandre Isoard via

Hi folks, I've been running a Compiler Explorer instance with Alive2 on a machine in my office, but availability has been poor due to random factors and of course recently it hasn't been easy or convenient to go in and fix things when the machine gets wedged. Nuno and I would like to ask the LLVM community if it's OK to point alive.llvm.org at a cloud machine that I've setup

+1 to alive2.llvm.org On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:11 AM John Regehr via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > If we can get Alive1 up there too, that would be even better. I still > > use that to try to prove things where it's not obvious how to express > > the relationships in pure LLVM IR: > > https://rise4fun.com/Alive/NDu > > I don't

Hi, Scalar evolution seems to be wrapping around the trip count in the following loop. void add (int *restrict a, int *restrict b, int *restrict c) { char i; for (i = 0; i < 255; i++) a[i] = b[i] + c[i]; } When I run scalar evolution on the bit code, I get a backedge-taken count which is obviously wrong. $> cat loop.ll ; Function Attrs: nounwind define void @add(i32* noalias

Ok. To go back to the original issue, would it be meaningful to add a SCEVUMax(0, BTC) on the final BTC computed by SCEV? So that it does not use "negative values"? On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 2:40 PM Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 8/15/2018 2:27 PM, Alexandre Isoard wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand the poison/undef/UB distinctions. >

Hi, Recently 10% performance regression on an important benchmark showed up after we integrated https://reviews.llvm.org/rL318299. The analysis showed that rL318299 triggered loop rotation on an multi exits loop, and the loop rotation introduced code layout issue. The performance regression is a side-effect of rL318299. I got two testcases a.ll and b.ll attached to illustrate the problem. a.ll

I'm not sure I understand the poison/undef/UB distinctions. But on this example: define i32 @func(i1 zeroext %b, i32 %x, i32 %y) { > entry: > %adds = add nsw i32 %x, %y > %addu = add nuw i32 %x, %y > %cond = select i1 %b, i32 %adds, i32 %addu > ret i32 %cond > } It is important to not propagate the nsw/nuw between the two SCEV expressions (which unification would

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 5:46 PM Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > The introduction of cleanup.cond block in b.ll without loop-rotation > already makes the layout worse than a.ll. > > > Without introducing cleanup.cond block, the layout out is > > entry->while.cond -> while.body->ret > > All the arrows are hot fall through edges which is

No concerns from me. I use Alive2 all the time, and it would be fantastic to have it available online reliably. If we can get Alive1 up there too, that would be even better. I still use that to try to prove things where it's not obvious how to express the relationships in pure LLVM IR: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/NDu On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:05 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at

Your smb.conf is incorrect/incomplete. Info here on these 2 links. https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setting_up_Samba_as_a_Domain_Member https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Idmap_config_rid Your smb.conf > >> [global] > >> max log size = 0 > >> realm = DOMAIN.COM > >> workgroup = DOMAIN > >> security = ADS > >> winbind enum users = yes >