Commit Graph

2 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Arthur Eubanks 9adbb5cb3a [SCEV] Fix ScalarEvolution tests under NPM
Many tests use opt's -analyze feature, which does not translate well to
NPM and has better alternatives. The alternative here is to explicitly
add a pass that calls ScalarEvolution::print().

The legacy pass manager RUNs aren't changing, but they are now pinned to
the legacy pass manager.  For each legacy pass manager RUN, I added a
corresponding NPM RUN using the 'print<scalar-evolution>' pass. For
compatibility with update_analyze_test_checks.py and existing test
CHECKs, 'print<scalar-evolution>' now prints what -analyze prints per
function.

This was generated by the following Python script and failures were
manually fixed up:

import sys
for i in sys.argv:
    with open(i, 'r') as f:
        s = f.read()
    with open(i, 'w') as f:
        for l in s.splitlines():
            if "RUN:" in l and ' -analyze ' in l and '\\' not in l:
                f.write(l.replace(' -analyze ', ' -analyze -enable-new-pm=0 '))
                f.write('\n')
                f.write(l.replace(' -analyze ', ' -disable-output ').replace(' -scalar-evolution ', ' "-passes=print<scalar-evolution>" ').replace(" | ", " 2>&1 | "))
                f.write('\n')
            else:
                f.write(l)

There are a couple failures still in ScalarEvolution under NPM, but
those are due to other unrelated naming conflicts.

Reviewed By: asbirlea

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83798
2020-07-16 11:24:07 -07:00
Sanjoy Das 91b5477aad [SCEV] Unify getUnsignedRange and getSignedRange
Summary:
This removes some duplicated code, and also helps optimization: e.g. in
the test case added, `%idx ULT 128` in `@x` is not currently optimized
to `true` by `-indvars` but will be, after this change.

The only functional change in ths commit is that for add recurrences,
ScalarEvolution::getRange will be more aggressive -- computing the
unsigned (resp. signed) range for a SCEVAddRecExpr will now look at the
NSW (resp. NUW) bits and check for signed (resp. unsigned) overflow.
This can be a strict improvement in some cases (such as the attached
test case), and should be no worse in other cases.

Reviewers: atrick, nlewycky

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8142

llvm-svn: 231709
2015-03-09 21:43:43 +00:00