similar to: Path condition propagation

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Carlos Liam via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Consider this C code: >> >> #include <stdbool.h> >> >> bool func(int n1, int n2, bool b) { >>

PropagateEquality in gvn.cpp However, if you are going to do it, remember the goal is to make the code simpler and easier, not just pile on to the current mess to catch more cases :) On Mon, Jul 4, 2016, 7:51 AM Carlos Liam <carlos at aarzee.me> wrote: > Where would I look to change the equality propagation? > > > - CL > > On Jun 30, 2016, at 11:45 PM, Daniel Berlin

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Carlos Liam via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > Consider this C code: > > #include <stdbool.h> > > bool func(int n1, int n2, bool b) { > bool greater = n1 > n2; > if (greater && b) { > if (n1 == n2) { > return false; // unreachable > } >

It's going to be really hard to do something sane in the current infrastructure. Its possible, but it would also be slow. You would have to go looking at uses of variables compared in predicates in PropagateEquality and if the uses appear in a comparison that is dominated by the true or false edge of the existing predicate, see if it tells you something about the dominated one. On Mon, Jul

The current gvn equality propagation is not powerful enough to get this because it doesn't try to infer values in predicates based on other predicates, so it never realizes a>b -> a !=b in a useful way. It otherwise would get this On Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 7:41 PM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev <

Sure On Mon, Jul 4, 2016, 9:40 AM Carlos Liam <carlos at aarzee.me> wrote: > It looks like there's already something similar in PropagateEquality which > eg X >= Y == true and replaces X < Y == false, which is somewhat similar - > could I base an addition off of that? > > > - CL > > On Jul 3, 2016, at 7:13 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>

19.08.2016, 18:30, "Renato Golin via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > On 19 August 2016 at 16:22, C Bergström <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>  Have you ever stayed in a non-hilton hotel while traveling? I don't >>  mean couch surfing, but just average place.. I'd even add some above >>  average places to the list and when you get

I'm not compiling it to x86. Should loop optimizer something independent of the target? If so, should the vectorized code on IR level? On Aug 12, 2016 11:39 AM, "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > cat > test.c > > #define SIZE 128 > > void bar(int *restrict A, int* restrict B,int K) { > > #pragma clang loop vectorize(enable)

Hi Daniel, I increased the size of your test to be 128 but -stats still shows no loop optimized... Xiaochu On Aug 12, 2016 11:11 AM, "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > It's not possible to know that A and B don't alias in this example. It's > almost certainly not profitable to add a runtime check given the size of > the loop. > > >

On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 6:34 PM Stefanos Baziotis < stefanos.baziotis at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Craig, > > > Adding a nuw to the add -8 is incorrect. > Yeah, I didn't mean to say it was correct. It was just an observation that > with nuw the optimization was happened and I asked if someone thought it > was somehow connected. > > > From the perspective of the

Hey folks, After a long amount of discussion both offline and on, I put a pass/intrinsic to add extended SSA up at http://reviews.llvm.org/D29316. Sean asked me to share it more broadly on llvm-dev, so here you go :) For those not familiar with extended-SSA, it's described in the paper "ABCD: Eliminating Array Bounds Checks on Demand". There is a very large amount of explanation

Adding a nuw to the add -8 is incorrect. From the perspective of the unsigned math, -8 is treated a very large positive number. The input to the add is [8,13) and adding a large positive number to it wraps around past 0. So that is guaranteed unsigned wrap. On the other hand, a sub nuw 8 would be correct. ~Craig On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 3:27 PM Stefanos Baziotis via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at

Hi, Can any llvm pass change simple return branch into select/return pair? For example: define i10 @mod_N(i10 zeroext %a) zeroext { entry: %tmp2 = icmp ugt i10 %a, -400 ; <i1> [#uses=1] br i1 %tmp2, label %cond_true, label %return cond_true: ; preds = %entry %tmp5 = add i10 %a, 400 ; <i10> [#uses=1] ret i10 %tmp5 return: ; preds = %entry ret

Estimados Usuarios-R: Estoy convirtiendo un programa en Matlab a R. El original lo saqu de: Lai, M., & Poltera, Y. (2009). Lecture with computer exercises: Modelling and simulating social systems with matlab. Tech. rep., Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (December 2009). 27. Ahora estoy convirtiendo la siguiente funcin: function sizes = gridsizes(N,varargin) % gridsizes(N) calculates

Hi All, We have recently found some optimization opportunities created by replicating code into branches in order to enable optimization. In general, the optimization opportunity we are pursuing is like the following. Given pseudo-code: // block A if (some condition) // block B // block C If it can be efficiently proven that some portion of block C can be simplified had control flow not

Could some kindly tell me if I am supposed to be getting the same test statistic value with var.equal=TRUE and var.equal=FALSE in t.test ? set.seed(1066) x1 <- rnorm(50) x2 <- rnorm(50) t.test(x1, x2, var.equal=FALSE)$statistic # 0.5989774 t.test(x1, x2, var.equal=TRUE)$statistic # 0.5989774 ??? Here are my own calculations that shows that perhaps the result when var.equal=TRUE is

Hi Daniel, Got it. If that's the case, can I implement it under the guidance of your insights/prototype? I think I can spend more time on implementation. Thanks, Taewook ________________________________ From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 9:41:30 PM To: Taewook Oh Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [NewGVN] Plan for GVNPRE? Of

Hi R lovers I would like to know how to step to the next line in the R console editor without breaking the continuity of my code more clearly : if for example I write a function, so far i have to write the all code inside on the same line wich may become obscure as the function is more and more complex. I would like to do like in the example of the manuels: >twosam <- function(y1, y2) {

I'm solving 4 complex equations simultaneously. Code is below. The code returns only zero's for the solution though there should also be a non-zero result. I'm pretty confident that the equations are correct because they are straight from a published paper and I checked them pretty thoroughly. The parameter values I used are from the published paper as well. Any suggestions for how

The problem seems that ":" always coerces to integer, but should not.. 9.9:12 ## R: [1] 9 10 11 ## S-plus 3.4: [1] 9.9 10.9 11.9 ## and many more examples.... -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or