This patch mechanically replaces None with std::nullopt where the
compiler would warn if None were deprecated. The intent is to reduce
the amount of manual work required in migrating from Optional to
std::optional.
This is part of an effort to migrate from llvm::Optional to
std::optional:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/deprecating-llvm-optional-x-hasvalue-getvalue-getvalueor/63716
These limitations are too strict, and their only purpose is to avoid code
size explosion. These restrictions seem obsolete, and the size problem
is solved in other places through cheap expansion limits.
The motivation is that the old code cannot deal with comparisons against
induction variant's increment.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D138412
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri, reames
Additional SCEV verification highlighted a case where the cached loop
dispositions where incorrect after simplifying a condition in IndVars
and moving the user in LoopDeletion. Fix it by invalidating ICmp and all
its users.
Fixes#58515.
Initial implementation had too weak requirements to positive/negative
range crossings. Not crossing zero with nuw is not enough for two reasons:
- If ArLHS has negative step, it may turn from positive to negative
without crossing 0 boundary from left to right (and crossing right to
left doesn't count for unsigned);
- If ArLHS crosses SINT_MAX boundary, it still turns from positive to
negative;
In fact we require that ArLHS always stays non-negative or negative,
which an be enforced by the following set of preconditions:
- both nuw and nsw;
- positive step (looks liftable);
Because of positive step, boundary crossing is only possible from left
part to the right part. And because of no-wrap flags, it is guaranteed
to never happen.
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
I happened to notice a two places where the enum was being pass
directly to the bool IsSigned argument of createExtendInst. This
was functionally ok since SignExtended in the enum has value
of 1, but the code shouldn't rely on that.
Using an enum class prevents the enum from being convertible to bool,
but does make writing the enum values more verbose. Since we now
have to write ExtendKind:: in front of them, I've shortened the
names of ZeroExtended and SignExtended.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129733
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
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
Evaluation odering in function call arguments is implementation-dependent.
In fact, gcc evaluates bottom-top and clang does top-bottom.
Fixes#55283 partially.
Part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D125627
Add void casts to mark the variables used, next to the places where
they are used in assert or `LLVM_DEBUG()` expressions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123117
We might want to use it when creating SCEV proper in createSCEV(),
now that we don't `forgetValue()` in `SimplifyIndvar::strengthenOverflowingOperation()`,
which might have caused us to loose some optimization potential.
When SimplifyIndVars infers IR nowrap flags from SCEV, this may
happen in two ways: Either nowrap flags were already present in
SCEV and just get transferred to IR. Or zero/sign extension of
addrecs infers additional nowrap flags, and those get transferred
to IR. In the latter case, calling forgetValue() ensures that the
newly inferred nowrap flags get propagated to any other SCEV
expressions based on the addrec. However, the invalidation can
also have a major compile-time effect in some cases. For
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50384 with n=512 compile-
time drops from 7.1s to 0.8s without this invalidation. At the
same time, removing the invalidation doesn't affect any codegen
in test-suite.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103424
When eliminating comparisons, we can use common dominator of
all its users as context. This gives better results when ICMP is not
computed right before the branch that uses it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98924
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
We can prove more predicates when we have a context when eliminating ICmp.
As first (and very obvious) approximation we can use the ICmp instruction itself,
though in the future we are going to use a common dominator of all its users.
Need some refactoring before that.
Observed ~0.5% negative compile time impact.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98697
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
This reverts commit 4bd35cdc3a.
The patch was reverted during the investigation. The investigation
shown that the patch did not cause any trouble, but just exposed
the existing problem that is addressed by the previous patch
"[IndVars] Quick fix LHS/RHS bug". Returning without changes.
The code relies on fact that LHS is the NarrowDef but never
really checks it. Adding the conservative restrictive check,
will follow-up with handling of case where RHS is a NarrowDef.
This reverts commit 0c9c6ddf17.
We are seeing some failures with this patch locally. Not clear
if it's causing them or just triggering a problem in another
place. Reverting while investigating.
If we decided to widen IV with zext, then unsigned comparisons
should not prevent widening (same for sext/sign comparisons).
The result of comparison in wider type does not change in this case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92207
Reviewed By: nikic
When widening an IndVar that has LCSSA Phi users outside
the loop, we can safely widen it as usual and then truncate
the result outside the loop without hurting the performance.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91593
Reviewed By: skatkov
When deciding to widen narrow use, we may need to prove some facts
about it. For proof, the context is used. Currently we take the instruction
being widened as the context.
However, we may be more precise here if we take as context the point that
dominates all users of instruction being widened.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90456
Reviewed By: skatkov
Sometimes the an instruction we are trying to widen is used by the IV
(which means the instruction is the IV increment). Currently this may
prevent its widening. We should ignore such user because it will be
dead once the transform is done anyways.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90920
Reviewed By: fhahn
InstCombine canonicalizes 'sub nuw' instructions to 'add' without the
`nuw` flag. The typical case where we see it is decrementing induction
variables. For them, IndVars fails to prove that it's legal to widen them,
and inserts unprofitable `zext`'s.
This patch adds recognition of such pattern using SCEV.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89550
Reviewed By: fhahn, skatkov
This moves WidenIV from IndVarSimplify to Utils/SimplifyIndVar so that we have
createWideIV available as a generic helper utility. I.e., this is not only
useful in IndVarSimplify, but could be useful for loop transformations. For
example, motivation for this refactoring is the loop flatten transformation: if
induction variables in a loop nest can be widened, we can avoid having to
perform certain overflow checks, enabling this transformation.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90421
While we haven't encountered an earth-shattering problem with this yet,
by now it is pretty evident that trying to model the ptr->int cast
implicitly leads to having to update every single place that assumed
no such cast could be needed. That is of course the wrong approach.
Let's back this out, and re-attempt with some another approach,
possibly one originally suggested by Eli Friedman in
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46786#c20
which should hopefully spare us this pain and more.
This reverts commits 1fb6104293,
7324616660,
aaafe350bb,
e92a8e0c74.
I've kept&improved the tests though.
This relands commit 1c021c64ca which was
reverted in commit 17cec6a11a because
an assertion was being triggered, since `BuildConstantFromSCEV()`
wasn't updated to handle the case where the constant we want to truncate
is actually a pointer. I was unsuccessful in coming up with a test case
where we'd end there with constant zext/sext of a pointer,
so i didn't handle those cases there until there is a test case.
Original commit message:
While we indeed can't treat them as no-ops, i believe we can/should
do better than just modelling them as `unknown`. `inttoptr` story
is complicated, but for `ptrtoint`, it seems straight-forward
to model it just as a zext-or-trunc of unknown.
This may be important now that we track towards
making inttoptr/ptrtoint casts not no-op,
and towards preventing folding them into loads/etc
(see D88979/D88789/D88788)
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88806
> While we indeed can't treat them as no-ops, i believe we can/should
> do better than just modelling them as `unknown`. `inttoptr` story
> is complicated, but for `ptrtoint`, it seems straight-forward
> to model it just as a zext-or-trunc of unknown.
>
> This may be important now that we track towards
> making inttoptr/ptrtoint casts not no-op,
> and towards preventing folding them into loads/etc
> (see D88979/D88789/D88788)
>
> Reviewed By: mkazantsev
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88806
It caused the following assert during Chromium builds:
llvm/lib/IR/Constants.cpp:1868:
static llvm::Constant *llvm::ConstantExpr::getTrunc(llvm::Constant *, llvm::Type *, bool):
Assertion `C->getType()->isIntOrIntVectorTy() && "Trunc operand must be integer"' failed.
See code review for a link to a reproducer.
This reverts commit 1c021c64ca.
While we indeed can't treat them as no-ops, i believe we can/should
do better than just modelling them as `unknown`. `inttoptr` story
is complicated, but for `ptrtoint`, it seems straight-forward
to model it just as a zext-or-trunc of unknown.
This may be important now that we track towards
making inttoptr/ptrtoint casts not no-op,
and towards preventing folding them into loads/etc
(see D88979/D88789/D88788)
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88806
Kazu Hirata