similar to: Represent Fortran alias information in LLVM IR

Hi, everyone, We had a great call last month, and progress is definitely being made on several fronts. The notes from our last call are available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ybwEKDVtIbhIhK50qYtwKsL50K-NvB6LfuBsfepBZ9Y/edit#heading=h.vpxs8lkuxy79 and, also, pasted below. DOODLE POLL: As we discussed on our last call, I would like to schedule a regular call to discuss

To join our call on Thursday, May 28th @ 9-10 AM central time / 2-3 PM UTC please use this information: Meeting URL https://bluejeans.com/643493129?src=join_info Meeting ID 643 493 129 Want to dial in from a phone? Dial one of the following numbers: +1.312.216.0325 (US (Chicago)) +1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) +1.866.226.4650 (US Toll Free) (see all numbers -

Great, thanks! Are you planning on just talking about these things with slides? Do we have other things to which we can link for people to read? -Hal Hal Finkel Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory ________________________________ From: Tarique Islam <tislam at ca.ibm.com> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:19:31 AM To:

Hi, everyone, We've had a number of discussions recently, including on the Flang technical call, about potential improvements to LLVM's alias analysis to support handling restrict and restrict-like semantics. We would like to try having a call to discuss these issues further. Please, if you're interested in joining, indicate your availability (prior to the end of this week):

Hi Johannes et al, > -----Original Message----- > From: Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> [..] > On 11/06, Jeroen Dobbelaere wrote: > > >From: Alexey Zhikhartsev > > [..] > > > We would love to see your patches merged as soon as possible, so I was > wondering: do you think the lack of bitcode support will prevent that from > happening? >

Hi llvm-dev It's been a few weeks since I last gave an update on F18 and our progress on readying it for inclusion into the monorepo. Last time we discussed this the community challenged us to make the F18 source code look more like an LLVM project and to come up with a plan and schedule for completing this work (http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-January/137989.html) The full

Johannes, Thanks, I have been following along some of the thread(s) and the phab reviews. The scope of this work is more encompassing than our current needs and I've looked at trying to carve a piece out. It's not clear to me what purpose the llvm.noalias intrinsic serves right now. Also, if a mem instruction has !noalias metadata, then it should not be aliased, but I must be missing

Can you elaborate on this? - to move the std::string/string_view/StringRef changes to pre-merge unless you're going to have someone dedicated to handling them post-merge (rather than "time permits"). The C vs C++ ism here is fairly strong and I'd like to get the C-style string handling out fairly quickly. I understood this item to be looking into replacing uses of std::string

Hi, everyone, A quick reminder: This call will start in approximately four hours. See below for how to join. On our current agenda: Agenda * Full restrict patch * Observation and clarification * Issues encountered * Speed up in intersection code - O(nlog(n)) * Calling Verifier after LoopVectorize pass? -Hal Hal Finkel Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming

Ok I think we have some common ground - CSE should choose the aliased pointer over the non-aliased one because we don't want the no-aliasing information to creep outwards from the inlined callsite. I'll put together a patch in the coming days and add y'all as reviewers so you get visibility. Cheers, -Neil. On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:47 PM Jeroen Dobbelaere < Jeroen.Dobbelaere at

On 06/28/2018 10:59 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: > Hi, Jeroen, > > We should move these conversations to llvm-dev so that they don't get > missed and others can contribute. Can I cc the list? [+llvm-dev] - Jeroen consented. > > Doing this will mean that the logic for when to remove dead llvm.noalias > intrinsics will become more complicated. That might be worthwhile. So >

Hi Jeroen, Sorry, I missed that. I tried the patch, and this program: #include <stdint.h> #define __remote __attribute__((address_space(1))) __remote int* A; __remote int* B; void vec_add(__remote int* __restrict a, __remote int* __restrict b, int n) { #pragma unroll 4 for(int i=0; i<n; ++i) { a[i] += b[i]; } } int main(int argc, char** argv) {

Hi Eric, Old flang certainly uses C-style strings but f18 uses std::string with few exceptions. Most of the instances in f18 of “char *” aren’t really strings in the C sense – they’re not null terminated and are really just pointers into raw or cooked source files/streams. I can’t think of an instance where the compiler dynamically allocates an array of characters and uses it as a C string. -

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,

Hi all, ## Status: During the past weeks I have updated the restrict patches with various improvements: - the ScopedNoAliasAA now also works together with the new pass manager - the SLPVectorizer now works nice with the noalias support. - there were some issues with some of the options enabling/disabling full restrict. These have been fixed. - various smaller enhancements. Today, I rebased the

At a high level, EarlyCSE should be intersecting the metadata of instructions that it combines. If it doesn't, and also doesn't drop the metadata, that seems like a bug, regardless of anything else. On 1/22/20 9:30 AM, Jeroen Dobbelaere wrote: Hi Neil, Hall, - as far as 'C' is concerned, this is input code is valid, as the pointers are not used to modify objects. - as far as

Hello, I believe these descriptors are specific to flang, not to LLVM. You should probably ask your question on flang-dev list. Thank you, --Eugene From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Venkataramanan Kumar via llvm-dev Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 8:44 AM To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: [llvm-dev] Help on understanding assume shape array

Hi Alexey, >From: Alexey Zhikhartsev [..] > We would love to see your patches merged as soon as possible, so I was wondering: do you think the lack of bitcode support will prevent that from happening? Yes, I think that the lack of bitcode support will prevent it. During the Developers meeting, I also talked with Hal and Johannes. They had some extra remarks: - (1) the restrict

Hi Jeroen, That's great! I was trying to use the patch, what's the latest version of the project we could apply it on? Hi Neil, That seems like what I can do as well! Do you happen to have some examples lying around? Maybe a pointer to the planned presentation, if that's okay? Thank you, Bandhav On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 1:55 AM Neil Henning <neil.henning at unity3d.com>

Thanks, Jeroen, that really helps. A follow-up question, if you don't mind. What if we have code somewhat similar to your example in assign3() but it's in C++ and the pointer derived from x is stored in a class member field: class S { public: S(int *d): data(d) {} int *getData() { return data; } private: int *__restrict__ data; }; void assign4(int *pA, long N) { int