This patch marks the induction increment of the main induction variable
of the vector loop as NUW when not folding the tail.
If the tail is not folded, we know that End - Start >= Step (either
statically or through the minimum iteration checks). We also know that both
Start % Step == 0 and End % Step == 0. We exit the vector loop if %IV +
%Step == %End. Hence we must exit the loop before %IV + %Step unsigned
overflows and we can mark the induction increment as NUW.
This should make SCEV return more precise bounds for the created vector
loops, used by later optimizations, like late unrolling.
At the moment quite a few tests still need to be updated, but before
doing so I'd like to get initial feedback to make sure I am not missing
anything.
Note that this could probably be further improved by using information
from the original IV.
Attempt of modeling of the assumption in Alive2:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/H_DL_g
Part of a set of fixes required for PR50412.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103255
Fix PR47390.
The primary induction should be considered alive when folding tail by masking,
because it will be used by said masking; even when it may otherwise appear
useless: feeding only its own 'bump', which is correctly considered dead, and
as the 'bump' of another induction variable, which may wrongfully want to
consider its bump = the primary induction, dead.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92017
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Some instructions from the original loop, when vectorized, can become trivially
dead. This happens because of the way we structure the new loop. For example,
we create new induction variables and induction variable "steps" in the new
loop. Thus, when we go to vectorize the original induction variable update, it
may no longer be needed due to the instructions we've already created. This
patch prevents us from creating these redundant instructions. This reduces code
size before simplification and allows greater flexibility in code generation
since we have fewer unnecessary instruction uses.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25631
llvm-svn: 284631
Florian Hahn