[LLVMdev] Dependence Analysis [was: Flow-Sensitive AA]

Chris Lattner clattner at apple.com
Fri Aug 22 17:54:24 PDT 2008

On Aug 22, 2008, at 3:05 PM, Vikram S. Adve wrote:

> On Aug 22, 2008, at 4:49 PM, John Regehr wrote:
>> Has anyone quantified the optimizations afforded by undefined signed
>> overflow?  I'd expect that the benefits are minimal for most codes.
> In most cases, I agree.  But for codes that depend heavily on
> dependence analysis, I would think that being conservative with index
> expressions would really kill any disambiguation capability and make
> many loop optimizations and other dependence-based optimizations much
> weaker.  For example, static scheduling of array intensive loops seems
> vulnerable to this.

There are many 'instcombine' level optimizations that become safe when  
overflow can't happen, e.g. x*2/2 -> x.

However, by far the most important case is loop induction variables  
for realistic code.


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list