It seems that the patch was reverted by mistake. Clang testing showed failure of the
MathExtras.SaturatingMultiply test, however I was unable to reproduce the issue on the
fresh code base and was able to confirm that the transformation introduced by the change
does not happen in the said test. This gives a strong confidence that the actual reason of
the failure of the initial patch was somewhere else, and that problem now seems to be
fixed. Re-submitting the change to confirm that.
llvm-svn: 307244
This patch seems to cause failures of test MathExtras.SaturatingMultiply on
multiple buildbots. Reverting until the reason of that is clarified.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL307126
llvm-svn: 307135
-If there is a IndVar which is known to be non-negative, and there is a value which is also non-negative,
then signed and unsigned comparisons between them produce the same result. Both of those can be
seen in the same loop. To allow other optimizations to simplify them, we turn all instructions like
%c = icmp slt i32 %iv, %b
to
%c = icmp ult i32 %iv, %b
if both %iv and %b are known to be non-negative.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34979
llvm-svn: 307126
In rL300494 there was an attempt to deal with excessive compile time on
invocations of getSign/ZeroExtExpr using local caching. This approach only
helps if we request the same SCEV multiple times throughout recursion. But
in the bug PR33431 we see a case where we request different values all the time,
so caching does not help and the size of the cache grows enormously.
In this patch we remove the local cache for this methods and add the recursion
depth limit instead, as we do for arithmetics. This gives us a guarantee that the
invocation sequence is limited and reasonably short.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34273
llvm-svn: 306785
In LLVM IR the following code:
%r = urem <ty> %t, %b
is equivalent to:
%q = udiv <ty> %t, %b
%s = mul <ty> nuw %q, %b
%r = sub <ty> nuw %t, %q ; (t / b) * b + (t % b) = t
As UDiv, Mul and Sub are already supported by SCEV, URem can be
implemented with minimal effort this way.
Note: While SRem and SDiv are also related this way, SCEV does not
provides SDiv yet.
llvm-svn: 306695
This is a fix for PR33292 that shows a case of extremely long compilation
of a single .c file with clang, with most time spent within SCEV.
We have a mechanism of limiting recursion depth for getAddExpr to avoid
long analysis in SCEV. However, there are calls from getAddExpr to getMulExpr
and back that do not propagate the info about depth. As result of this, a chain
getAddExpr -> ... .> getAddExpr -> getMulExpr -> getAddExpr -> ... -> getAddExpr
can be extremely long, with every segment of getAddExpr's being up to max depth long.
This leads either to long compilation or crash by stack overflow. We face this situation while
analyzing big SCEVs in the test of PR33292.
This patch applies the same limit on max expression depth for getAddExpr and getMulExpr.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33984
llvm-svn: 305463
The patch rL303730 was reverted because test lsr-expand-quadratic.ll failed on
many non-X86 configs with this patch. The reason of this is that the patch
makes a correctless fix that changes optimizer's behavior for this test.
Without the change, LSR was making an overconfident simplification basing on a
wrong SCEV. Apparently it did not need the IV analysis to do this. With the
change, it chose a different way to simplify (that wasn't so confident), and
this way required the IV analysis. Now, following the right execution path,
LSR tries to make a transformation relying on IV Users analysis. This analysis
is target-dependent due to this code:
// LSR is not APInt clean, do not touch integers bigger than 64-bits.
// Also avoid creating IVs of non-native types. For example, we don't want a
// 64-bit IV in 32-bit code just because the loop has one 64-bit cast.
uint64_t Width = SE->getTypeSizeInBits(I->getType());
if (Width > 64 || !DL.isLegalInteger(Width))
return false;
To make a proper transformation in this test case, the type i32 needs to be
legal for the specified data layout. When the test runs on some non-X86
configuration (e.g. pure ARM 64), opt gets confused by the specified target
and does not use it, rejecting the specified data layout as well. Instead,
it uses some default layout that does not treat i32 as a legal type
(currently the layout that is used when it is not specified does not have
legal types at all). As result, the transformation we expect to happen does
not happen for this test.
This re-enabling patch does not have any source code changes compared to the
original patch rL303730. The only difference is that the failing test is
moved to X86 directory and now has requirement of running on x86 only to comply
with the specified target triple and data layout.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33543
llvm-svn: 303971
When folding arguments of AddExpr or MulExpr with recurrences, we rely on the fact that
the loop of our base recurrency is the bottom-lost in terms of domination. This assumption
may be broken by an expression which is treated as invariant, and which depends on a complex
Phi for which SCEVUnknown was created. If such Phi is a loop Phi, and this loop is lower than
the chosen AddRecExpr's loop, it is invalid to fold our expression with the recurrence.
Another reason why it might be invalid to fold SCEVUnknown into Phi start value is that unlike
other SCEVs, SCEVUnknown are sometimes position-bound. For example, here:
for (...) { // loop
phi = {A,+,B}
}
X = load ...
Folding phi + X into {A+X,+,B}<loop> actually makes no sense, because X does not exist and cannot
exist while we are iterating in loop (this memory can be even not allocated and not filled by this moment).
It is only valid to make such folding if X is defined before the loop. In this case the recurrence {A+X,+,B}<loop>
may be existant.
This patch prohibits folding of SCEVUnknown (and those who use them) into the start value of an AddRecExpr,
if this instruction is dominated by the loop. Merging the dominating unknown values is still valid. Some tests that
relied on the fact that some SCEVUnknown should be folded into AddRec's are changed so that they no longer
expect such behavior.
llvm-svn: 303730
This is a re-application of a r303497 that was reverted in r303498.
I thought it had broken a bot when it had not (the breakage did not
go away with the revert).
This change makes the split between the "exact" backedge taken count
and the "maximum" backedge taken count a bit more obvious. Both of
these are upper bounds on the number of times the loop header
executes (since SCEV does not account for most kinds of abnormal
control flow), but the latter is guaranteed to be a constant.
There were a few places where the max backedge taken count *was* a
non-constant; I've changed those to compute constants instead.
At this point, I'm not sure if the constant max backedge count can be
computed by calling `getUnsignedRange(Exact).getUnsignedMax()` without
losing precision. If it can, we can simplify even further by making
`getMaxBackedgeTakenCount` a thin wrapper around
`getBackedgeTakenCount` and `getUnsignedRange`.
llvm-svn: 303531
This change makes the split between the "exact" backedge taken count
and the "maximum" backedge taken count a bit more obvious. Both of
these are upper bounds on the number of times the loop header
executes (since SCEV does not account for most kinds of abnormal
control flow), but the latter is guaranteed to be a constant.
There were a few places where the max backedge taken count *was* a
non-constant; I've changed those to compute constants instead.
At this point, I'm not sure if the constant max backedge count can be
computed by calling `getUnsignedRange(Exact).getUnsignedMax()` without
losing precision. If it can, we can simplify even further by making
`getMaxBackedgeTakenCount` a thin wrapper around
`getBackedgeTakenCount` and `getUnsignedRange`.
llvm-svn: 303497
The existing sorting order in defined CompareSCEVComplexity sorts AddRecExprs
by loop depth, but does not pay attention to dominance of loops. This can
lead us to the following buggy situation:
for (...) { // loop1
op1 = {A,+,B}
}
for (...) { // loop2
op2 = {A,+,B}
S = add op1, op2
}
In this case there is no guarantee that in operand list of S the op2 comes
before op1 (loop depth is the same, so they will be sorted just
lexicographically), so we can incorrectly treat S as a recurrence of loop1,
which is wrong.
This patch changes the sorting logic so that it places the dominated recs
before the dominating recs. This ensures that when we pick the first recurrency
in the operands order, it will be the bottom-most in terms of domination tree.
The attached test set includes some tests that produce incorrect SCEV
estimations and crashes with oldlogic.
Reviewers: sanjoy, reames, apilipenko, anna
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33121
llvm-svn: 303148
Summary:
The existing implementation creates a symbolic SCEV expression every
time we analyze a phi node and then has to remove it, when the analysis
is finished. This is very expensive, and in most of the cases it's also
unnecessary. According to the data I collected, ~60-70% of analyzed phi
nodes (measured on SPEC) have the following form:
PN = phi(Start, OP(Self, Constant))
Handling such cases separately significantly speeds this up.
Reviewers: sanjoy, pete
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32663
llvm-svn: 302096
Summary:
programUndefinedIfPoison makes more sense, given what the function
does; and I'm about to add a function with a name similar to
isKnownNotFullPoison (so do the rename to avoid confusion).
Reviewers: broune, majnemer, bjarke.roune
Reviewed By: broune
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30444
llvm-svn: 301776
There have been multiple reports of this causing problems: a
compile-time explosion on the LLVM testsuite, and a stack
overflow for an opencl kernel.
llvm-svn: 300928
Use haveNoCommonBitsSet to figure out whether an "or" instruction
is equivalent to addition. This handles more cases than just
checking for a constant on the RHS.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32239
llvm-svn: 300746
The patch rL298481 was reverted due to crash on clang-with-lto-ubuntu build.
The reason of the crash was type mismatch between either a or b and RHS in the following situation:
LHS = sext(a +nsw b) > RHS.
This is quite rare, but still possible situation. Normally we need to cast all {a, b, RHS} to their widest type.
But we try to avoid creation of new SCEV that are not constants to avoid initiating recursive analysis that
can take a lot of time and/or cache a bad value for iterations number. To deal with this, in this patch we
reject this case and will not try to analyze it if the type of sum doesn't match with the type of RHS. In this
situation we don't need to create any non-constant SCEVs.
This patch also adds an assertion to the method IsProvedViaContext so that we could fail on it and not
go further into range analysis etc (because in some situations these analyzes succeed even when the passed
arguments have wrong types, what should not normally happen).
The patch also contains a fix for a problem with too narrow scope of the analysis caused by wrong
usage of predicates in recursive invocations.
The regression test on the said failure: test/Analysis/ScalarEvolution/implied-via-addition.ll
Reviewers: reames, apilipenko, anna, sanjoy
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, mehdi_amini, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31238
llvm-svn: 299205
The patch rL298481 was reverted due to crash on clang-with-lto-ubuntu build.
The reason of the crash was type mismatch between either a or b and RHS in the following situation:
LHS = sext(a +nsw b) > RHS.
This is quite rare, but still possible situation. Normally we need to cast all {a, b, RHS} to their widest type.
But we try to avoid creation of new SCEV that are not constants to avoid initiating recursive analysis that
can take a lot of time and/or cache a bad value for iterations number. To deal with this, in this patch we
reject this case and will not try to analyze it if the type of sum doesn't match with the type of RHS. In this
situation we don't need to create any non-constant SCEVs.
This patch also adds an assertion to the method IsProvedViaContext so that we could fail on it and not
go further into range analysis etc (because in some situations these analyzes succeed even when the passed
arguments have wrong types, what should not normally happen).
The patch also contains a fix for a problem with too narrow scope of the analysis caused by wrong
usage of predicates in recursive invocations.
The regression test on the said failure: test/Analysis/ScalarEvolution/implied-via-addition.ll
llvm-svn: 298690
Given below case:
%y = shl %x, n
%z = ashr %y, m
when n = m, SCEV models it as sext(trunc(x)). This patch tries to handle
the case where n > m by using sext(mul(trunc(x), 2^(n-m)))) as the SCEV
expression.
llvm-svn: 298631
This patch allows SCEV predicate analysis to prove implication of some expression predicates
from context predicates related to arguments of those expressions.
It introduces three new rules:
For addition:
(A >X && B >= 0) || (B >= 0 && A > X) ===> (A + B) > X.
For division:
(A > X) && (0 < B <= X + 1) ===> (A / B > 0).
(A > X) && (-B <= X < 0) ===> (A / B >= 0).
Using these rules, SCEV is able to prove facts like "if X > 1 then X / 2 > 0".
They can also be combined with the same context, to prove more complex expressions like
"if X > 1 then X/2 + 1 > 1".
Diffirential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30887
Reviewed by: sanjoy
llvm-svn: 298481
If loop bound containing calculations like min(a,b), the Scalar
Evolution API getSmallConstantTripMultiple returns 4294967295 "-1"
as the trip multiple. The problem is that, SCEV use -1 * umax to
represent umin. The multiple constant -1 was returned, and the logic
of guarding against huge trip counts was skipped. Because -1 has 32
active bits.
The fix attempt to factor more general cases. First try to get the
greatest power of two divisor of trip count expression. In case
overflow happens, the trip count expression is still divisible by the
greatest power of two divisor returned. Returns 1 if not divisible by 2.
Patch by Huihui Zhang <huihuiz@codeaurora.org>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30840
llvm-svn: 298301
Summary:
This approach has two major advantages over the existing one:
1. We don't need to extend bitwidth in our computations. Extending
bitwidth is a big issue for compile time as we often end up working with
APInts wider than 64bit, which is a slow case for APInt.
2. When we zero extend a wrapped range, we lose some information (we
replace the range with [0, 1 << src bit width)). Thus, avoiding such
extensions better preserves information.
Correctness testing:
I ran 'ninja check' with assertions that the new implementation of
getRangeForAffineAR gives the same results as the old one (this
functionality is not present in this patch). There were several failures
- I inspected them manually and found out that they all are caused by
the fact that we're returning more accurate results now (see bullet (2)
above).
Without such assertions 'ninja check' works just fine, as well as
SPEC2006.
Compile time testing:
CTMark/Os:
- mafft/pairlocalalign -16.98%
- tramp3d-v4/tramp3d-v4 -12.72%
- lencod/lencod -11.51%
- Bullet/bullet -4.36%
- ClamAV/clamscan -3.66%
- 7zip/7zip-benchmark -3.19%
- sqlite3/sqlite3 -2.95%
- SPASS/SPASS -2.74%
- Average -5.81%
Performance testing:
The changes are expected to be neutral for runtime performance.
Reviewers: sanjoy, atrick, pete
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30477
llvm-svn: 297992
Summary:
Motivation: fix PR31181 without regression (the actual fix is still in
progress). However, the actual content of PR31181 is not relevant
here.
This change makes poison propagation more aggressive in the following
cases:
1. poision * Val == poison, for any Val. In particular, this changes
existing intentional and documented behavior in these two cases:
a. Val is 0
b. Val is 2^k * N
2. poison << Val == poison, for any Val
3. getelementptr is poison if any input is poison
I think all of these are justified (and are axiomatically true in the
new poison / undef model):
1a: we need poison * 0 to be poison to allow transforms like these:
A * (B + C) ==> A * B + A * C
If poison * 0 were 0 then the above transform could not be allowed
since e.g. we could have A = poison, B = 1, C = -1, making the LHS
poison * (1 + -1) = poison * 0 = 0
and the RHS
poison * 1 + poison * -1 = poison + poison = poison
1b: we need e.g. poison * 4 to be poison since we want to allow
A * 4 ==> A + A + A + A
If poison * 4 were a value with all of their bits poison except the
last four; then we'd not be able to do this transform since then if A
were poison the LHS would only be "partially" poison while the RHS
would be "full" poison.
2: Same reasoning as (1b), we'd like have the following kinds
transforms be legal:
A << 1 ==> A + A
Reviewers: majnemer, efriedma
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30185
llvm-svn: 295809
Make SolveLinEquationWithOverflow take the start as a SCEV, so we can
solve more cases. With that implemented, get rid of the special case
for powers of two.
The additional functionality probably isn't particularly useful,
but it might help a little for certain cases involving pointer
arithmetic.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28884
llvm-svn: 293576
Inlining in getAddExpr() can cause abnormal computational time in some cases.
New parameter -scev-addops-inline-threshold is intruduced with default value 500.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28812
llvm-svn: 293176
bots ever since d0k fixed the CHECK lines so that it did something at
all.
It isn't actually testing SCEV directly but LSR, so move it into LSR and
the x86-specific tree of tests that already exists there. Target
dependence is common and unavoidable with the current design of LSR.
llvm-svn: 292774
To avoid regressions, make ScalarEvolution::createSCEV a bit more
clever.
Also get rid of some useless code in ScalarEvolution::howFarToZero
which was hiding this bug.
No new testcase because it's impossible to actually expose this bug:
we don't have any in-tree users of getUDivExactExpr besides the two
functions I just mentioned, and they both dodged the problem. I'll
try to add some interesting users in a followup.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28587
llvm-svn: 292449
First, I've moved a test of IVUsers from the LSR tree to a dedicated
IVUsers test directory. I've also simplified its RUN line now that the
new pass manager's loop PM is providing analyses on their own.
No functionality changed, but it makes subsequent changes cleaner.
llvm-svn: 292060
mark it as never invalidated in the new PM.
The old PM already required this to work, and after a discussion with
Hal this seems to really be the only sensible answer. The cache
gracefully degrades as the IR is mutated, and most things which do this
should already be incrementally updating the cache.
This gets rid of a bunch of logic preserving and testing the
invalidation of this analysis.
llvm-svn: 292039
Refines max backedge-taken count if a loop like
"for (int i = 0; i != n; ++i) { /* body */ }" is rotated.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28536
llvm-svn: 291704
This is both easier to understand, and produces a tighter bound in certain
cases.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28393
llvm-svn: 291701
invalid.
This fixes use-after-free bugs that will arise with any interesting use
of SCEV.
I've added a dedicated test that works diligently to trigger these kinds
of bugs in the new pass manager and also checks for them explicitly as
well as triggering ASan failures when things go squirly.
llvm-svn: 291426
There was an efficiency problem with how we processed @llvm.assume in
ValueTracking (and other places). The AssumptionCache tracked all of the
assumptions in a given function. In order to find assumptions relevant to
computing known bits, etc. we searched every assumption in the function. For
ValueTracking, that means that we did O(#assumes * #values) work in InstCombine
and other passes (with a constant factor that can be quite large because we'd
repeat this search at every level of recursion of the analysis).
Several of us discussed this situation at the last developers' meeting, and
this implements the discussed solution: Make the values that an assume might
affect operands of the assume itself. To avoid exposing this detail to
frontends and passes that need not worry about it, I've used the new
operand-bundle feature to add these extra call "operands" in a way that does
not affect the intrinsic's signature. I think this solution is relatively
clean. InstCombine adds these extra operands based on what ValueTracking, LVI,
etc. will need and then those passes need only search the users of the values
under consideration. This should fix the computational-complexity problem.
At this point, no passes depend on the AssumptionCache, and so I'll remove
that as a follow-up change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27259
llvm-svn: 289755
Summary:
When SCEVRewriteVisitor traverses the SCEV DAG, it may visit the same SCEV
multiple times if this SCEV is referenced by multiple other SCEVs. This has
exponential time complexity in the worst case. Memoizing the results will
avoid re-visiting the same SCEV. Add a map to save the results, and override
the visit function of SCEVVisitor. Now SCEVRewriteVisitor only visit each
SCEV once and thus returns the same result for the same input SCEV.
This patch fixes PR18606, PR18607.
Reviewers: Sanjoy Das, Mehdi Amini, Michael Zolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25810
llvm-svn: 284868
When we have a loop with a known upper bound on the number of iterations, and
furthermore know that either the number of iterations will be either exactly
that upper bound or zero, then we can fully unroll up to that upper bound
keeping only the first loop test to check for the zero iteration case.
Most of the work here is in plumbing this 'max-or-zero' information from the
part of scalar evolution where it's detected through to loop unrolling. I've
also gone for the safe default of 'false' everywhere but howManyLessThans which
could probably be improved.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25682
llvm-svn: 284818
This is to avoid inlining too many multiplication operands into a SCEV, which could
take exponential time in the worst case.
Reviewers: Sanjoy Das, Mehdi Amini, Michael Zolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25794
llvm-svn: 284784
In loops that look something like
i = n;
do {
...
} while(i++ < n+k);
where k is a constant, the maximum backedge count is k (in fact the backedge
count will be either 0 or k, depending on whether n+k wraps). More generally
for LHS < RHS if RHS-(LHS of first comparison) is a constant then the loop will
iterate either 0 or that constant number of times.
This allows for more loop unrolling with the recent upper bound loop unrolling
changes, and I'm working on a patch that will let loop unrolling additionally
make use of the loop being executed either 0 or k times (we need to retain the
loop comparison only on the first unrolled iteration).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25607
llvm-svn: 284465
Enhance SCEV to compute the trip count for some loops with unknown stride.
Patch by Pankaj Chawla
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22377
llvm-svn: 281732
value is a pointer.
This patch is to fix PR30213. When expanding an expr based on ValueOffsetPair,
if the value is of pointer type, we can only create a getelementptr instead
of sub expr.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24088
llvm-svn: 281439
when unroll runtime iteration loop.
In llvm::UnrollRuntimeLoopRemainder, if the loop to be unrolled is the inner
loop inside a loop nest, the scalar evolution needs to be dropped for its
parent loop which is done by ScalarEvolution::forgetLoop. However, we can
postpone forgetLoop to the end of UnrollRuntimeLoopRemainder so TripCountSC
expansion can still reuse existing value.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23572
llvm-svn: 279748
Max Kazantsev