In order to compute domain conditions for conditionals we will now
traverse the region in the ScopInfo once and build the domains for
each block in the region. The SCoP statements can then use these
constraints when they build their domain.
The reason behind this change is twofold:
1) This removes a big chunk of preprocessing logic from the
TempScopInfo, namely the Conditionals we used to build there.
Additionally to moving this logic it is also simplified. Instead
of walking the dominance tree up for each basic block in the
region (as we did before), we now traverse the region only
once in order to collect the domain conditions.
2) This is the first step towards the isl based domain creation.
The second step will traverse the region similar to this step,
however it will propagate back edge conditions. Once both are in
place this conditional handling will allow multiple exit loops
additional logic.
Reviewers: grosser
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12428
llvm-svn: 246398
Being here, we extend the interface to return the element type and not a pointer
to the element type. We also provide a function to get the size (in bytes) of
the elements stored in this array.
We currently still store the element size as an innermost dimension in
ScopArrayInfo, which is somehow inconsistent and should be addressed in future
patches.
llvm-svn: 237779
I just learned that target triples prevent test cases to be run on other
architectures. Polly test cases are until now sufficiently target independent
to not require any target triples. Hence, we drop them.
llvm-svn: 235384
Scops that only read seem generally uninteresting and scops that only write are
most likely initializations where there is also little to optimize. To not
waste compile time we bail early.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7735
llvm-svn: 229820
SCEV based code generation has been the default for two weeks after having
been tested for a long time. We now drop the support the non-scev-based code
generation.
llvm-svn: 222978
Without this patch, the testcase would fail on the delinearization of the second
array:
; void foo(long n, long m, long o, double A[n][m][o]) {
; for (long i = 0; i < n; i++)
; for (long j = 0; j < m; j++)
; for (long k = 0; k < o; k++) {
; A[i+3][j-4][k+7] = 1.0;
; A[i][0][k] = 2.0;
; }
; }
; CHECK: [n, m, o] -> { Stmt_for_body6[i0, i1, i2] -> MemRef_A[3 + i0, -4 + i1, 7 + i2] };
; CHECK: [n, m, o] -> { Stmt_for_body6[i0, i1, i2] -> MemRef_A[i0, 0, i2] };
Here is the output of FileCheck on the testcase without this patch:
; CHECK: [n, m, o] -> { Stmt_for_body6[i0, i1, i2] -> MemRef_A[i0, 0, i2] };
^
<stdin>:26:2: note: possible intended match here
[n, m, o] -> { Stmt_for_body6[i0, i1, i2] -> MemRef_A[o0] };
^
It is possible to find a good delinearization for A[i][0][k] only in the context
of the delinearization of both array accesses.
There are two ways to delinearize together all array subscripts touching the
same base address: either duplicate the code from scop detection to first gather
all array references and then run the delinearization; or as implemented in this
patch, use the same delinearization info that we computed during scop detection.
llvm-svn: 210117
Johannes Doerfert