As noted in the nice block comment, the previous code didn't actually handle multi-entry loops correctly, it just assumed SCEV didn't analyze such loops. Given SCEV has comments to the contrary, that seems a bit suspect. More importantly, the pass actually requires loopsimplify form which ensures a loop-preheader is available. Remove the excessive generaility and shorten the code greatly.
Note that we do successfully analyze many multi-entry loops, but we do so by converting them to single entry loops. See the added test case.
llvm-svn: 316976
Summary:
Was D9784: "Remove loop variant range check when induction variable is
strictly increasing"
This change re-implements D9784 with the two differences:
1. It does not use SCEVExpander and does not generate new
instructions. Instead, it does a quick local search for existing
`llvm::Value`s that it needs when modifying the `icmp`
instruction.
2. It is more general -- it deals with both increasing and decreasing
induction variables.
I've added all of the tests included with D9784, and two more.
As an example on what this change does (copied from D9784):
Given C code:
```
for (int i = M; i < N; i++) // i is known not to overflow
if (i < 0) break;
a[i] = 0;
}
```
This transformation produces:
```
for (int i = M; i < N; i++)
if (M < 0) break;
a[i] = 0;
}
```
Which can be unswitched into:
```
if (!(M < 0))
for (int i = M; i < N; i++)
a[i] = 0;
}
```
I went back and forth on whether the top level logic should live in
`SimplifyIndvar::eliminateIVComparison` or be put into its own
routine. Right now I've put it under `eliminateIVComparison` because
even though the `icmp` is not *eliminated*, it no longer is an IV
comparison. I'm open to putting it in its own helper routine if you
think that is better.
Reviewers: reames, nicholas, atrick
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11278
llvm-svn: 243331
Philip Reames