As part of making ScalarEvolution's handling of pointers consistent, we
want to forbid multiplying a pointer by -1 (or any other value). This
means we can't blindly subtract pointers.
There are a few ways we could deal with this:
1. We could completely forbid subtracting pointers in getMinusSCEV()
2. We could forbid subracting pointers with different pointer bases
(this patch).
3. We could try to ptrtoint pointer operands.
The option in this patch is more friendly to non-integral pointers: code
that works with normal pointers will also work with non-integral
pointers. And it seems like there are very few places that actually
benefit from the third option.
As a minimal patch, the ScalarEvolution implementation of getMinusSCEV
still ends up subtracting pointers if they have the same base. This
should eliminate the shared pointer base, but eventually we'll need to
rewrite it to avoid negating the pointer base. I plan to do this as a
separate step to allow measuring the compile-time impact.
This doesn't cause obvious functional changes in most cases; the one
case that is significantly affected is ICmpZero handling in LSR (which
is the source of almost all the test changes). The resulting changes
seem okay to me, but suggestions welcome. As an alternative, I tried
explicitly ptrtoint'ing the operands, but the result doesn't seem
obviously better.
I deleted the test lsr-undef-in-binop.ll becuase I couldn't figure out
how to repair it to test what it was actually trying to test.
Recommitting with fix to MemoryDepChecker::isDependent.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104806
As part of making ScalarEvolution's handling of pointers consistent, we
want to forbid multiplying a pointer by -1 (or any other value). This
means we can't blindly subtract pointers.
There are a few ways we could deal with this:
1. We could completely forbid subtracting pointers in getMinusSCEV()
2. We could forbid subracting pointers with different pointer bases
(this patch).
3. We could try to ptrtoint pointer operands.
The option in this patch is more friendly to non-integral pointers: code
that works with normal pointers will also work with non-integral
pointers. And it seems like there are very few places that actually
benefit from the third option.
As a minimal patch, the ScalarEvolution implementation of getMinusSCEV
still ends up subtracting pointers if they have the same base. This
should eliminate the shared pointer base, but eventually we'll need to
rewrite it to avoid negating the pointer base. I plan to do this as a
separate step to allow measuring the compile-time impact.
This doesn't cause obvious functional changes in most cases; the one
case that is significantly affected is ICmpZero handling in LSR (which
is the source of almost all the test changes). The resulting changes
seem okay to me, but suggestions welcome. As an alternative, I tried
explicitly ptrtoint'ing the operands, but the result doesn't seem
obviously better.
I deleted the test lsr-undef-in-binop.ll becuase I couldn't figure out
how to repair it to test what it was actually trying to test.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104806
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
We can't consider variable safe if out-of-lifetime access is possible.
So if StackLifetime can't prove that the instruction always uses
the variable when it's still alive, we consider it unsafe.
Usually DominatorTree provides this info, but here we use
StackLifetime. The reason is that in the next patch StackLifetime
will be used for actual lifetime checks and we can avoid
forwarding the DominatorTree into this code.
We don't need process paramenters which marked as
byval as we are not going to pass interested allocas
without copying.
If we pass value into byval argument, we just handle that
as Load of corresponding type and stop that branch of analysis.
Summary:
Treat scalable allocas as if they have storage size of 0, and
scalable-typed memory accesses as if their range is unlimited.
This is not a proper support of scalable vector types in the analysis -
we can do better, but not today.
Reviewers: vitalybuka
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73394
Summary:
IPA is implemented as module pass which produce map from Function or Alias to
StackSafetyInfo for a single function.
From prototype by Evgenii Stepanov and Vlad Tsyrklevich.
Reviewers: eugenis, vlad.tsyrklevich, pcc, glider
Subscribers: hiraditya, mgrang, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54543
llvm-svn: 347611
Summary:
Analysis produces StackSafetyInfo which contains information with how allocas
and parameters were used in functions.
From prototype by Evgenii Stepanov and Vlad Tsyrklevich.
Reviewers: eugenis, vlad.tsyrklevich, pcc, glider
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54504
llvm-svn: 347603
Eli Friedman