Hi Daniel,

In D34478#789005, @dberlin wrote:

In D34478#787355, @Farhana wrote:

In D34478#787319, @dberlin wrote:

"It makes the assumption that the values(GEP indices) are from the same iteration if the analysis has not visited any phi's yet."

Can you prove that this is actually true for all codepaths through here?

I agree that my comment about loop iteration is misleading.

In order to call isAddOfNonZero() on index1 and index2 and check whether index2 equals to index1 + x( and, vice versa), we need to prove that we are working on the same copy of index1. Which means the instance that used in index1 is the same as the one used in index2.
If we haven’t visited any phis yet, we can assume that part of the code is flat and we have the same copy, right?

This is precisely my question: Are you guaranteed that all codepaths end up here only in that situation?

Hi Simon,

In D34478#787319, @dberlin wrote:

"It makes the assumption that the values(GEP indices) are from the same iteration if the analysis has not visited any phi's yet."

Can you prove that this is actually true for all codepaths through here?

This change-set reflects the fixed typos.

ping.

Updated diff with the latest changes in the trunk.

What is the performance implication of this change-set? Have you done any performance testing? This seems to make the alias analysis very conservative. It is now going to find two non-equal numbers equal very easily.

It seems to me that the improvement is done in the wrong place which is JumpThreading and made the change-set very specific. In my opinion, it does not have to be specific to JumpThreading. It can be a very general improvement of LVI using your new utilities.

In D33684#767889, @RKSimon wrote:

What happened to test/CodeGen/X86/x86-interleaved-access.ll ?

updated x86-interleaved-access.ll

Hi Simon,

Updated the changes with the feedback from Dave.

Ping.

In D32658#741498, @RKSimon wrote:

Performance numbers?

Also, please add context to the diff.

ArrayRefs are passed by value.

Hi Guys,

This change-set addresses Elena's comments.

Replaces uint32_t with unsigned.

In D25986#590381, @RKSimon wrote:

Please can you replace the uses of uint32_t with unsigned?

Thanks Dave, the update addresses your comment.

The update addresses Zvi's comment about declaring Grp as a functional local variable.

Thanks Simon and Zvi.

Hi Michael,

In D24681#566229, @mkuper wrote:

I'm really sorry for coming into this review so late, but could you please also add stand-alone IR-level tests for the pass itself (and not only llc-level tests)?
Not only we'll get better testing granularity, but it'll be easier to see what the produced IR looks like, and whether it's really in the form we want.

Includes changes that reflect Dave and Simon's comment.

Uploaded the whole patch after running clang-format.

This version is created after running clang-format.

Hi Zvi,