This reverts commit 354fa0b480.
Returning as is. The patch was reverted due to a miscompile, but
this patch is not causing it. This patch made it possible to infer
some nuw flags in code guarded by `false` condition, and then someone
else to managed to propagate the flag from dead code outside.
Returning the patch to be able to reproduce the issue.
This reverts commit 34ae308c73.
Our internal testing found a miscompile. Not sure if it's caused by
this patch or it revealed something else. Reverting while investigating.
Contextual knowledge may be used to prove invariance of some conditions.
For example, in this case:
```
; %len >= 0
guard(%iv = {start,+,1}<nuw> <s %len)
guard(%iv = {start,+,1}<nuw> <u %len)
```
the 2nd check always fails if `start` is negative and always passes otherwise.
It looks like there are more opportunities of this kind that are still to be
implemented in the future.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129753
Reviewed By: apilipenko
Sometimes SCEV cannot infer nuw/nsw from something as simple as
```
len in [0, MAX_INT]
...
iv = phi(0, iv.next)
guard(iv <s len)
guard(iv <u len)
iv.next = iv + 1
```
just because flag strenthening only relies on definition and does not use local facts.
This patch adds support for the simplest case: inference of flags of `add(x, constant)`
if we can contextually prove that `x <= max_int - constant`.
In case if it has negative CT impact, we can add an option to switch it off. I woudln't
expect that though.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129643
Reviewed By: apilipenko
isSafeToExpand() for addrecs depends on whether the SCEVExpander
will be used in CanonicalMode. At least one caller currently gets
this wrong, resulting in PR50506.
Fix this by a) making the CanonicalMode argument on the freestanding
functions required and b) adding member functions on SCEVExpander
that automatically take the SCEVExpander mode into account. We can
use the latter variant nearly everywhere, and thus make sure that
there is no chance of CanonicalMode mismatch.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/50506.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129630
After replacing a loop phi with the preheader value, it's usually
possible to simplify some of the using instructions, so do that as
part of replaceLoopPHINodesWithPreheaderValues().
Doing this as part of IndVars is valuable, because it may make GEPs
in the loop have constant offsets and allow the following SROA run
to succeed (as demonstrated in the PhaseOrdering test).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129293
Currently we only call replaceLoopPHINodesWithPreheaderValues() if
optimizeLoopExits() replaces the exit with an unconditional exit.
However, it is very common that this already happens as part of
eliminateIVComparison(), in which case we're leaving behind the
dead header phi.
Tweak the early bailout for already-constant exits to also call
replaceLoopPHINodesWithPreheaderValues().
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129214
The general idea of these tests is elimination of signed and unsigned
comparison of the same values through proving non-negativity of them.
Here are some examples where SCEV is not smart enough to prove it.
When trying to prove an implied condition on a phi by proving it
for all incoming values, we need to be careful about values coming
from a backedge, as these may refer to a previous loop iteration.
A variant of this issue was fixed in D101829, but the dominance
condition used there isn't quite right: It checks that the value
dominates the incoming block, which doesn't exclude backedges
(values defined in a loop will usually dominate the loop latch,
which is the incoming block of the backedge).
Instead, we should be checking for domination of the phi block.
Any values defined inside the loop will not dominate the loop
header phi.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/56242.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128640
The IV widening code currently asserts that terminators aren't SCEVable
-- however, this is not the case for invokes with a returned attribute.
As far as I can tell, this assertions is not necessary -- even if we
have a critical edge (the second test case), the trunc gets inserted
in a legal position.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/55925.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127288
Now that SimpleLoopUnswitch and other transforms no longer introduce
branch on poison, enable the -branch-on-poison-as-ub option by
default. The practical impact of this is mostly better flag
preservation in SCEV, and some freeze instructions no longer being
necessary.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D125299
When computing the BECount for multi-exit loops, we need to combine
individual exit counts using umin_seq rather than umin. This is
because an earlier exit may exit on the first iteration, in which
case later exit expressions will not be evaluated and could be
poisonous. We cannot propagate potential poison values from later
exits.
In particular, this avoids the introduction of "branch on poison"
UB when optimizing multi-exit loops.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124910
%x umin_seq %y is currently expanded to %x == 0 ? 0 : umin(%x, %y).
This patch changes the expansion to umin(%x, freeze %y) instead
(https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/wujUhp).
The motivation for this change are the test cases affected by
D124910, where the freeze expansion ultimately produces better
optimization results. This is largely because
`(%x umin_seq %y) == %x` is a common expansion pattern, which
reliably optimizes in freeze representation, but only sometimes
with the zero comparison (in particular, if %x == 0 can fold to
something else, we generally won't be able to cover reasonable
code from this.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D125372
With opaque pointers, we can eliminate zero-index GEPs even if
they have multiple indices, as this no longer impacts the result
type of the GEP.
This optimization is already done for instructions in InstSimplify,
but we were missing the corresponding constant expression handling.
The constexpr transform is a bit more powerful, because it can
produce a vector splat constant and also handles undef values --
it is an extension of an existing single-index transform.
This avoids false positive verification failures if the condition
is not literally true/false, but SCEV still makes use of the fact
that a loop is not reachable through more complex reasoning.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/54434.
Currently, we hardly ever actually run SCEV verification, even in
tests with -verify-scev. This is because the NewPM LPM does not
verify SCEV. The reason for this is that SCEV verification can
actually change the result of subsequent SCEV queries, which means
that you see different transformations depending on whether
verification is enabled or not.
To allow verification in the LPM, this limits verification to
BECounts that have actually been cached. It will not calculate
new BECounts.
BackedgeTakenInfo::getExact() is still not entirely readonly,
it still calls getUMinFromMismatchedTypes(). But I hope that this
is not problematic in the same way. (This could be avoided by
performing the umin in the other SCEV instance, but this would
require duplicating some of the code.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120551
For unreachable loops, any BECount is legal, and since D98706 SCEV
can make use of this for loops that are unreachable due to constant
branches. To avoid false positives, adjust SCEV verification to only
check BECounts in reachable loops.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/50523.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120651
This patch adds support for implication inference logic for the
following pattern:
```
lhs < (y >> z) <= y, y <= rhs --> lhs < rhs
```
We should be able to use the fact that value shifted to right is
not greater than the original value (provided it is non-negative).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116150
Reviewed-By: apilipenko
Two crashes have been reported. This change disables the new logic while leaving the new node in tree. Hopefully, that's enough to allow investigation without breakage while avoiding massive churn.
As discussed in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53020 / https://reviews.llvm.org/D116692,
SCEV is forbidden from reasoning about 'backedge taken count'
if the branch condition is a poison-safe logical operation,
which is conservatively correct, but is severely limiting.
Instead, we should have a way to express those
poison blocking properties in SCEV expressions.
The proposed semantics is:
```
Sequential/in-order min/max SCEV expressions are non-commutative variants
of commutative min/max SCEV expressions. If none of their operands
are poison, then they are functionally equivalent, otherwise,
if the operand that represents the saturation point* of given expression,
comes before the first poison operand, then the whole expression is not poison,
but is said saturation point.
```
* saturation point - the maximal/minimal possible integer value for the given type
The lowering is straight-forward:
```
compare each operand to the saturation point,
perform sequential in-order logical-or (poison-safe!) ordered reduction
over those checks, and if reduction returned true then return
saturation point else return the naive min/max reduction over the operands
```
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/Q7jxvH (2 ops)
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/QCRrhk (3 ops)
Note that we don't need to check the last operand: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/abvHQS
Note that this is not commutative: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/FK9e97
That allows us to handle the patterns in question.
Reviewed By: nikic, reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116766
Remove the assertion about the pointer element type, only check
that the stride is one. Ultimately, the actual pointer type here
doesn't matter, because SCEVExpander would insert appropriate
casts if necessary.
ValuesAtScopes maps a SCEV and a Loop to another SCEV. While we
invalidate entries if the left-hand SCEV is invalidated, we
currently don't do this for the right-hand SCEV. Fix this by
tracking users in a reverse map and using it for invalidation.
This is conceptually the same change as D114738, but using the
reverse map to avoid performance issues.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114788
The basic problem we have is that we're trying to reuse an instruction which is mapped to some SCEV. Since we can have multiple such instructions (potentially with different flags), this is analogous to our need to drop flags when performing CSE. A trivial implementation would simply drop flags on any instruction we decided to reuse, and that would be correct.
This patch is almost that trivial patch except that we preserve flags on the reused instruction when existing users would imply UB on overflow already. Adding new users can, at most, refine this program to one which doesn't execute UB which is valid.
In practice, this fixes two conceptual problems with the previous code: 1) a binop could have been canonicalized into a form with different opcode or operands, or 2) the inbounds GEP case which was simply unhandled.
On the test changes, most are pretty straight forward. We loose some flags (in some cases, they'd have been dropped on the next CSE pass anyways). The one that took me the longest to understand was the ashr-expansion test. What's happening there is that we're considering reuse of the mul, previously we disallowed it entirely, now we allow it with no flags. The surrounding diffs are all effects of generating the same mul with a different operand order, and then doing simple DCE.
The loss of the inbounds is unfortunate, but even there, we can recover most of those once we actually treat branch-on-poison as immediate UB.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112734
Max Kazantsev