similar to: LLVM Loop vectorizer - 2 vector.body blocks appear

Hi Alex, I think the changes you want are actually not vectorizer related. Vectorizer just uses data provided by other passes. What you probably might want is to look into routine Loop::getStartLoc() (see lib/Analysis/LoopInfo.cpp). If you find a way to improve it, patches are welcome:) Thanks, Michael > On Jun 3, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Alex Susu <alex.e.susu at gmail.com> wrote: >

On 03/14/2017 12:11 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: > >> On Mar 14, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov >> <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote: >> >> >> On 03/14/2017 11:21 AM, Adam Nemet wrote: >>> >>>> On Mar 14, 2017, at 6:00 AM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com >>>> <mailto:Ashutosh.Nema at

Summarizing the discussion on the implementation approaches. Discussed about two approaches, first running ‘InnerLoopVectorizer’ again on the epilog loop immediately after vectorizing the original loop within the same vectorization pass, the second approach where re-running vectorization pass and limiting vectorization factor of epilog loop by metadata. <Approach-2> Challenges with

Hi, Mehdi, For example, I have this very simple source code: void foo( int n, int array_x[]) { for (int i=0; i < n; i++) array_x[i] = i; } After I use "clang -emit-llvm -o bc_from_clang.bc -c try.cc", I get bc_from_clang.bc. With my code (using LLVM IRbuilder API), I get bc_from_api.bc. Attachment please find thse two files. I also past the IR here.

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alex Bradbury" <asb at asbradbury.org> > To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2015 10:30:09 AM > Subject: Re: noalias parameter attribute not currently exploited by alias analysis? > > On 2 November 2015 at 20:20, Alex Bradbury <asb at

Hello, Michael, I'd like to ask if we can enhance the LoopVectorize LLVM module (I am currently using a version from Jul 2016). More exactly: - do you envision to support in the near future LLVM IR gather and scatter intrinsics (as described at http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#llvm-masked-gather-intrinsics and scatter)? I see you have defined some methods that should

Thanks for your point that out. I just add DataLayout in my code such as "mod->setDataLayout("e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128");", still no luck. I'm really confused about this. Do I need to add more passes before -loop-unroll? On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Aug 22, 2015, at 7:27 AM, Xiangyang

Please file a bug for these types of issues. On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Akira Hatanaka <ahatanak at gmail.com> wrote: > I am seeing an assert when I compile the attached program with clang: > > $ clang -fno-strict-aliasing -target mips64el-unknown-linux -O3 > -fomit-frame-pointer -S test1.c -o test1.ll -emit-llvm > > > It asserts when LoopVectorize.cpp:506 is

I am seeing an assert when I compile the attached program with clang: $ clang -fno-strict-aliasing -target mips64el-unknown-linux -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -S test1.c -o test1.ll -emit-llvm It asserts when LoopVectorize.cpp:506 is executed. It looks like it is complaining because it is trying to zero-extend an i64 (type Count->getType() returns i64) to an i32 (IdxTy). if (Count->getType()

I am seeing an assert when I run this command: $ clang -fno-strict-aliasing -target mips64el-unknown-linux -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -S oggenc.i -o oggenc.ll -emit-llvm It asserts when LoopVectorize.cpp:506 is executed. It looks like it is complaining because it is trying to zero-extend an i64 (type Count->getType() returns i64) to an i32 (IdxTy). if (Count->getType() != IdxTy) { //

On 03/14/2017 11:21 AM, Adam Nemet wrote: > >> On Mar 14, 2017, at 6:00 AM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com >> <mailto:Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com>> wrote: >> >> Summarizing the discussion on the implementation approaches. >> Discussed about two approaches, first running ‘InnerLoopVectorizer’ >> again on the epilog loop immediately after

On 03/14/2017 11:58 AM, Michael Kuperstein wrote: > I'm still not sure about this, for a few reasons: > > 1) I'd like to try to treat epilogue loops the same way regardless of > whether the main loop was vectorized by hand or automatically. So if > someone hand-wrote an avx-512 16-wide loop, with alias checks, and we > decide it's profitable to vectorize the

Hi, I just tried llvm-3.8 (LLVM SVN Repository). With this version, -fno-rtti can help me to compile my code and -irce can help me to do a better job for loop unrolling. However, I still have one question. If I use Clang to compile a piece of c++ code to .bc and then use 'opt -loop-rotate -loop-unroll -irce', I can get what I want. I mean, there is no conditional branch at the end of each

I wanted to confirm that my understanding of the situation is correct. For background, I've been working have an optimizer pass for a research architecture which works best when there are large basic blocks and good alias analysis results. I first noticed the issue in rgbcmy01 from eembc-1.1, but have created a simpler test case which demonstrates the same issue which is unencumbered by the

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 23:20, Philip Reames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I don't care about the convention, but I'm really not sure it's worth the churn which would result in the code base. The hurtle which needs cleared here is not "is it a better naming style", but "is the disruption implied by changing to the new convention

On 03/14/2017 07:50 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: > >> On Mar 14, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov >> <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 03/14/2017 12:11 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: >>> >>>> On Mar 14, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov >>>> <mailto:hfinkel at

Something like: index 6db7f68..68564cb 100644 --- a/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp +++ b/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp @@ -1208,6 +1208,8 @@ void InnerLoopVectorizer::vectorizeMemoryInstruction(Instr Type *DataTy = VectorType::get(ScalarDataTy, VF); Value *Ptr = LI ? LI->getPointerOperand() : SI->getPointerOperand(); unsigned Alignment = LI ?

>it cannot afford large size masks for large vectors So, even a standard way of vectorizing remainder in masked or unmasked fashion wouldn’t work, I suppose. Ouch. I suppose VPlan should be able to model this kind of gigantic remainder vector code (when the time comes). Not pretty at all, though. Now, be fully aware that Direction #2 is really a poor (or rather extremely poor) person’s

Hi, > Can you post the llc command line you're using? Can you post an LLVM IR > file that causes this behavior? yes: ${LLVM_PATH}/bin/llc -o helloworld.s -march=nvptx helloworld.ll where LLVM_PATH my local installation path for LLVM. Also attaching helloworld.c: #include <stdio.h> int main(void) { printf("Hello World!\n"); return 0; } and helloworld.ll:

On 2/18/2019 4:15 AM, Michael Platings via llvm-dev wrote: > Taking my previous example [1]: > > InnerLoopVectorizer LB(L, PSE, LI, DT, TLI, TTI, AC, ORE, VF.Width, IC, > &LVL, &CM); > > If we imagine that over time it evolves such that 50% of the variables have been renamed to camelBack versions of the type names, then it will look like this: > >