6 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Nikita Popov
05dc149c87 [LAA] Convert tests to opaque pointers (NFC) 2022-12-16 12:45:59 +01:00
Florian Hahn
555e09c2b0
[LAA] Rename printing pass to print<access-info>.
This updates the naming for the LAA printing pass to be in line with
most other analysis printing passes.

The old name has come up as confusing multiple times already, e.g. in
D131924.
2022-08-26 11:00:09 +01:00
Arthur Eubanks
34de63c37f [test] Remove unnecessary require<> in LoopAccessAnalysis tests
These function analyses are always available in loop passes.
2022-02-04 18:03:55 -08:00
Arthur Eubanks
50153213c8 [test][NewPM] Remove RUN lines using -analyze
Only tests in llvm/test/Analysis.

-analyze is legacy PM-specific.

This only touches files with `-passes`.

I looked through everything and made sure that everything had a new PM equivalent.

Reviewed By: MaskRay

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109040
2021-09-02 11:38:14 -07:00
Arthur Eubanks
54e1bf1154 [LoopAccessAnalysis][NewPM] Fix tests to work under NPM
Pin RUN lines with -analyze to legacy PM, add corresponding NPM RUN lines.

Reviewed By: fhahn

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87662
2020-09-15 11:06:47 -07:00
Dorit Nuzman
eac89d736c [LV/LoopAccess] Check statically if an unknown dependence distance can be
proven larger than the loop-count

This fixes PR31098: Try to resolve statically data-dependences whose
compile-time-unknown distance can be proven larger than the loop-count, 
instead of resorting to runtime dependence checking (which are not always 
possible).

For vectorization it is sufficient to prove that the dependence distance 
is >= VF; But in some cases we can prune unknown dependence distances early,
and even before selecting the VF, and without a runtime test, by comparing 
the distance against the loop iteration count. Since the vectorized code 
will be executed only if LoopCount >= VF, proving distance >= LoopCount 
also guarantees that distance >= VF. This check is also equivalent to the 
Strong SIV Test.

Reviewers: mkuper, anemet, sanjoy

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28044

llvm-svn: 294892
2017-02-12 09:32:53 +00:00