As being discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D100721,
this modelling is lossy, we can't reconstruct `ash`/`ashr exact`
from it, which means that whenever we actually expand the IR,
we've just pessimized the code..
It would be good to model this pattern, after all it comes up every time
you want to compute a distance between two pointers, but not at this cost.
This reverts commit ec54867df5.
When computing a range for a SCEVUnknown, today we use computeKnownBits for unsigned ranges, and computeNumSignBots for signed ranges. This means we miss opportunities to improve range results.
One common missed pattern is that we have a signed range of a value which CKB can determine is positive, but CNSB doesn't convey that information. The current range includes the negative part, and is thus double the size.
Per the removed comment, the original concern which delayed using both (after some code merging years back) was a compile time concern. CTMark results (provided by Nikita, thanks!) showed a geomean impact of about 0.1%. This doesn't seem large enough to avoid higher quality results.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96534
It's not pretty, but probably better than modelling it
as an opaque SCEVUnknown, i guess.
It is relevant e.g. for the loop that was brought up in
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46786#c26
as an example of what we'd be able to better analyze
once SCEV handles `ptrtoint` (D89456).
But as it is evident, even if we deal with `ptrtoint` there,
we also fail to model such an `ashr`.
Also, modeling of mul-of-exact-shr/div could use improvement.
As per alive2:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/tnfZKd
```
define i8 @src(i8 %0) {
%2 = ashr exact i8 %0, 4
ret i8 %2
}
declare i8 @llvm.abs(i8, i1)
declare i8 @llvm.smin(i8, i8)
declare i8 @llvm.smax(i8, i8)
define i8 @tgt(i8 %x) {
%abs_x = call i8 @llvm.abs(i8 %x, i1 false)
%div = udiv exact i8 %abs_x, 16
%t0 = call i8 @llvm.smax(i8 %x, i8 -1)
%t1 = call i8 @llvm.smin(i8 %t0, i8 1)
%r = mul nsw i8 %div, %t1
ret i8 %r
}
```
Transformation seems to be correct!
Roman Lebedev