Summary:
Previosly we simply always said that `SCEVMinMaxExpr` is too costly to expand.
But this isn't really true, it expands into just a comparison+swap pair.
And again much like with add/mul, there will be one less such pair
than the number of operands. And we need to count the cost of operands themselves.
This does change a number of testcases, and as far as i can tell,
all of these changes are improvements, in the sense that
we fixed up more latches to do the [in]equality comparison.
This concludes cost-modelling changes, no other SCEV expressions exist as of now.
This is a part of addressing [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44668 | PR44668 ]].
Reviewers: reames, mkazantsev, wmi, sanjoy
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: hiraditya, javed.absar, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73744
Summary:
Currently, `SCEVExpander::isHighCostExpansionHelper()` has the following logic:
```
if (auto *UDivExpr = dyn_cast<SCEVUDivExpr>(S)) {
// If the divisor is a power of two and the SCEV type fits in a native
// integer (and the LHS not expensive), consider the division cheap
// irrespective of whether it occurs in the user code since it can be
// lowered into a right shift.
if (auto *SC = dyn_cast<SCEVConstant>(UDivExpr->getRHS()))
if (SC->getAPInt().isPowerOf2()) {
if (isHighCostExpansionHelper(UDivExpr->getLHS(), L, At,
BudgetRemaining, TTI, Processed))
return true;
const DataLayout &DL =
L->getHeader()->getParent()->getParent()->getDataLayout();
unsigned Width = cast<IntegerType>(UDivExpr->getType())->getBitWidth();
return DL.isIllegalInteger(Width);
}
```
Since this test does not have a datalayout specified,
`SCEVExpander::isHighCostExpansionHelper()` says that
`[[TMP2:%.*]] = lshr exact i64 [[TMP1]], 5` is high-cost, and didn't perform it.
But future patches will change that logic to solely rely on cost-model,
without any such datalayout checks, so i think it is best to show
that that change is ephemeral, and can already happen without costmodel changes.
Reviewers: reames, fhahn, sanjoy, craig.topper, RKSimon
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: javed.absar, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73717
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
This is no-functional-change-intended.
This is repackaging the functionality of D30333 (defer switch-to-lookup-tables) and
D35411 (defer folding unconditional branches) with pass parameters rather than a named
"latesimplifycfg" pass. Now that we have individual options to control the functionality,
we could decouple when these fire (but that's an independent patch if desired).
The next planned step would be to add another option bit to disable the sinking transform
mentioned in D38566. This should also make it clear that the new pass manager needs to
be updated to limit simplifycfg in the same way as the old pass manager.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38631
llvm-svn: 316835
Summary:
When simplifying unconditional branches from empty blocks, we pre-test if the
BB belongs to a set of loop headers and keep the block to prevent passes from
destroying canonical loop structure. However, the current algorithm fails if
the destination of the branch is a loop header. Especially when such a loop's
latch block is folded into loop header it results in additional backedges and
LoopSimplify turns it into a nested loop which prevent later optimizations
from being applied (e.g., loop unrolling and loop interleaving).
This patch augments the existing algorithm by further checking if the
destination of the branch belongs to a set of loop headers and defer
eliminating it if yes to LateSimplifyCFG.
Fixes PR33605: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33605
Reviewers: efriedma, mcrosier, pacxx, hsung, davidxl
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: ashutosh.nema, gberry, javed.absar, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35411
llvm-svn: 308422
Generate a single test to decide if there are enough iterations to jump to the
vectorized loop, or else go to the scalar remainder loop. This test compares the
Scalar Trip Count: if STC < VF * UF go to the scalar loop. If
requiresScalarEpilogue() holds, at-least one iteration must remain scalar; the
rest can be used to form vector iterations. So in this case the test checks
instead if (STC - 1) < VF * UF by comparing STC <= VF * UF, and going to the
scalar loop if so. Otherwise the vector loop is entered for at-least one vector
iteration.
This test covers the case where incrementing the backedge-taken count will
overflow leading to an incorrect trip count of zero. In this (rare) case we will
also avoid the vector loop and jump to the scalar loop.
This patch simplifies the existing tests and effectively removes the basic-block
originally named "min.iters.checked", leaving the single test in block
"vector.ph".
Original observation and initial patch by Evgeny Stupachenko.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34150
llvm-svn: 308421
Allowed loop vectorization with secondary FP IVs. Like this:
float *A;
float x = init;
for (int i=0; i < N; ++i) {
A[i] = x;
x -= fp_inc;
}
The auto-vectorization is possible when the induction binary operator is "fast" or the function has "unsafe" attribute.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D21330
llvm-svn: 276554
Roman Lebedev