Due to a typo, this replaced %x with umax(C1, umin(C2, %x + C3))
rather than umax(C1, umin(C2, %x)). This didn't make a difference
for the existing tests, because the result is only used for range
calculation, and %x will usually have an unknown starting range,
and the additional offset keeps it unknown. However, if %x already
has a known range, we may compute a result range that is too
small.
There's a silent bug in our reasoning about zero strides. We assume that having a single static exit implies that if that exit is not taken, then the loop must be infinite. This ignores the potential for abnormal exits via exceptions. Consider the following example:
for (uint_8 i = 0; i < 1; i += 0) {
throw_on_thousandth_call();
}
Our reasoning is such that we'd conclude this loop can't take the backedge as that would lead to a (presumed) infinite loop.
In practice, this is a silent bug because the loopIsFiniteByAssumption returns false strictly more often than the loopHaNoAbnormalExits property. We could reasonable want to change that in the future, so fixing the codeflow now is worthwhile.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109029
This extends D108921 into a generic rule applied to constructing ExitLimits along all paths. The remaining paths (primarily howFarToZero) don't have the same reasoning about UB sensitivity as the howManyLessThan ones did. Instead, the remain cause for max counts being more precise than exact counts is that we apply context sensitive loop guards on the max path, and not on the exact path. That choice is mildly suspect, but out of scope of this patch.
The MVETailPredication.cpp change deserves a bit of explanation. We were previously figuring out that two SCEVs happened to be equal because the happened to be identical. When we optimized one with context sensitive information, but not the other, we lost the ability to prove them equal. So, cover this case by subtracting and then applying loop guards again. Without this, we see changes in test/CodeGen/Thumb2/mve-blockplacement.ll
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109015
This patch is specifically the howManyLessThan case. There will be a couple of followon patches for other codepaths.
The subtle bit is explaining why the two codepaths have a difference while both are correct. The test case with modifications is a good example, so let's discuss in terms of it.
* The previous exact bounds for this example of (-126 + (126 smax %n))<nsw> can evaluate to either 0 or 1. Both are "correct" results, but only one of them results in a well defined loop. If %n were 127 (the only possible value producing a trip count of 1), then the loop must execute undefined behavior. As a result, we can ignore the TC computed when %n is 127. All other values produce 0.
* The max taken count computation uses the limit (i.e. the maximum value END can be without resulting in UB) to restrict the bound computation. As a result, it returns 0 which is also correct.
WARNING: The logic above only holds for a single exit loop. The current logic for max trip count would be incorrect for multiple exit loops, except that we never call computeMaxBECountForLT except when we can prove either a) no overflow occurs in this IV before exit, or b) this is the sole exit.
An alternate approach here would be to add the limit logic to the symbolic path. I haven't played with this extensively, but I'm hesitant because a) the term is optional and b) I'm not sure it'll reliably simplify away. As such, the resulting code quality from expansion might actually get worse.
This was noticed while trying to figure out why D108848 wasn't NFC, but is otherwise standalone.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108921
ExposePointerBase() in SCEVExpander implements basically the same
functionality as removePointerBase() in SCEV, so reuse it.
The SCEVExpander code assumes that the pointer operand on adds is
the last one -- I'm not sure that always holds. As such this might
not be strictly NFC.
This was previously committed in 914836b, and reverted due to confusion on the status of the review.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108601
If we no an addrec doesn't self-wrap, the increment is strictly positive, and the start value is the smallest representable value, then we know that the corresponding wrap type can not occur.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108601
Since then, the SCEV pointer handling as been improved,
so the assertion should now hold.
This reverts commit b96114c1e1,
relanding the assertion from commit 141e845da5.
This adjusts mayHaveSideEffect() to return true for !willReturn()
instructions. Just like other side-effects, non-willreturn calls
(aka "divergence") cannot be removed and cannot be reordered relative
to other side effects. This fixes a number of bugs where
non-willreturn calls are either incorrectly dropped or moved. In
particular, it also fixes the last open problem in
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50511.
I performed a cursory review of all current mayHaveSideEffect()
uses, which convinced me that these are indeed the desired default
semantics. Places that do not want to consider non-willreturn as a
sideeffect generally do not want mayHaveSideEffect() semantics at
all. I identified two such cases, which are addressed by D106591
and D106742. Finally, there is a use in SCEV for which we don't
really have an appropriate API right now -- what it wants is
basically "would this be considered forward progress". I've just
spelled out the previous semantics there.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106749
Eli pointed out the issue when reviewing D104140. The max trip count logic makes an assumption that the value of IV changes. When the step is zero, the nowrap fact becomes trivial, and thus there's nothing preventing the loop from being nearly infinite. (The "nearly" part is because mustprogress may disallow an infinite loop while still allowing 999999999 iterations before RHS happens to allow an exit.)
This is very difficult to see in practice. You need a means to produce a loop varying RHS in a mustprogress loop which doesn't allow the loop to be infinite. In most cases, LICM or SCEV are smart enough to remove the loop varying expressions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106327
Allow arbitrary strides, and make sure we return the correct result when
the backedge-taken count is zero.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106197
Wrap semantics are subtle when combined with multiple exits. This has caused several rounds of confusion during recent reviews, so try to document the subtly distinction between when wrap flags provide <u and <=u facts.
The current implementation of computeBECount doesn't account for the
possibility that adding "Stride - 1" to Delta might overflow. For almost
all loops, it doesn't, but it's not actually proven anywhere.
To deal with this, use a variety of tricks to try to prove that the
addition doesn't overflow. If the proof is impossible, use an alternate
sequence which never overflows.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105216
This is split from D105216, it handles only a subset of the cases in that patch.
Specifically, the issue being fixed is that the code incorrectly assumed that (Start-Stide) < End implied that the backedge was taken at least once. This is not true when e.g. Start = 4, Stride = 2, and End = 3. Note that we often do produce the right backedge taken count despite the flawed reasoning.
The fix chosen here is to use an alternate form of uceil (ceiling of unsigned divide) lowering which is safe when max(RHS,Start) > Start - Stride. (Note that signedness of both max expression and comparison depend on the signedness of the comparison being analyzed, and that overflow in the Start - Stride expression is allowed.) Note that this is weaker than proving the backedge is taken because it allows start - stride < end < start. Some cases which can't be proven safe are sent down the generic path, and we do end up generating less optimal expressions in a few cases.
Credit for coming up with the approach goes entirely to Eli. I just split it off, tweaked the comments a bit, and did some additional testing.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105942
This is split from D105216, but the code is hoisted much earlier into
the path where we can actually get a zero stride flowing through. Some
fairly simple proofs handle the cases which show up in practice. The
only test changes are the cases where we really do need a non-zero
divider to produce the right result.
Recommitting with isLoopInvariant() check.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105921
This is split from D105216, but the code is hoisted much earlier into the path where we can actually get a zero stride flowing through. Some fairly simple proofs handle the cases which show up in practice. The only test changes are the cases where we really do need a non-zero divider to produce the right result.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105921
Split off from D105216 to simplify review. Rewritten with a lambda to be easier to follow. Comments clarified.
Sorry for no test case, this is tricky to exercise with the current structure of the code. It's about to be hit more frequently in a follow up patch, and the change itself is simple.
This is split from D105216 to reduce patch complexity. Original code by Eli with very minor modification by me.
The primary point of this patch is to add the getUDivCeilSCEV routine. I included the two callers with constant arguments as we know those must constant fold even without any of the fancy inference logic.
Rules:
1. SCEVUnknown is a pointer if and only if the LLVM IR value is a
pointer.
2. SCEVPtrToInt is never a pointer.
3. If any other SCEV expression has no pointer operands, the result is
an integer.
4. If a SCEVAddExpr has exactly one pointer operand, the result is a
pointer.
5. If a SCEVAddRecExpr's first operand is a pointer, and it has no other
pointer operands, the result is a pointer.
6. If every operand of a SCEVMinMaxExpr is a pointer, the result is a
pointer.
7. Otherwise, the SCEV expression is invalid.
I'm not sure how useful rule 6 is in practice. If we exclude it, we can
guarantee that ScalarEvolution::getPointerBase always returns a
SCEVUnknown, which might be a helpful property. Anyway, I'll leave that
for a followup.
This is basically mop-up at this point; all the changes with significant
functional effects have landed. Some of the remaining changes could be
split off, but I don't see much point.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105510
In order to mirror the GetElementPtrInst::indices() API.
Wanted to use this in the IRForTarget code, and was surprised to
find that it didn't exist yet.
This reverts commit 5b350183cd (and
also "[NFC][ScalarEvolution] Cleanup howManyLessThans.",
009436e9c1, to make it apply).
See https://reviews.llvm.org/D105216 for discussion on various
miscompilations caused by that commit.
There are two issues with the current implementation of computeBECount:
1. It doesn't account for the possibility that adding "Stride - 1" to
Delta might overflow. For almost all loops, it doesn't, but it's not
actually proven anywhere.
2. It doesn't account for the possibility that Stride is zero. If Delta
is zero, the backedge is never taken; the value of Stride isn't
relevant. To handle this, we have to make sure that the expression
returned by computeBECount evaluates to zero.
To deal with this, add two new checks:
1. Use a variety of tricks to try to prove that the addition doesn't
overflow. If the proof is impossible, use an alternate sequence which
never overflows.
2. Use umax(Stride, 1) to handle the possibility that Stride is zero.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105216
Add a function removePointerBase that returns, essentially, S -
getPointerBase(S). Use it in getMinusSCEV instead of actually
subtracting pointers.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105503
As part of making ScalarEvolution's handling of pointers consistent, we
want to forbid multiplying a pointer by -1 (or any other value). This
means we can't blindly subtract pointers.
There are a few ways we could deal with this:
1. We could completely forbid subtracting pointers in getMinusSCEV()
2. We could forbid subracting pointers with different pointer bases
(this patch).
3. We could try to ptrtoint pointer operands.
The option in this patch is more friendly to non-integral pointers: code
that works with normal pointers will also work with non-integral
pointers. And it seems like there are very few places that actually
benefit from the third option.
As a minimal patch, the ScalarEvolution implementation of getMinusSCEV
still ends up subtracting pointers if they have the same base. This
should eliminate the shared pointer base, but eventually we'll need to
rewrite it to avoid negating the pointer base. I plan to do this as a
separate step to allow measuring the compile-time impact.
This doesn't cause obvious functional changes in most cases; the one
case that is significantly affected is ICmpZero handling in LSR (which
is the source of almost all the test changes). The resulting changes
seem okay to me, but suggestions welcome. As an alternative, I tried
explicitly ptrtoint'ing the operands, but the result doesn't seem
obviously better.
I deleted the test lsr-undef-in-binop.ll becuase I couldn't figure out
how to repair it to test what it was actually trying to test.
Recommitting with fix to MemoryDepChecker::isDependent.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104806
As part of making ScalarEvolution's handling of pointers consistent, we
want to forbid multiplying a pointer by -1 (or any other value). This
means we can't blindly subtract pointers.
There are a few ways we could deal with this:
1. We could completely forbid subtracting pointers in getMinusSCEV()
2. We could forbid subracting pointers with different pointer bases
(this patch).
3. We could try to ptrtoint pointer operands.
The option in this patch is more friendly to non-integral pointers: code
that works with normal pointers will also work with non-integral
pointers. And it seems like there are very few places that actually
benefit from the third option.
As a minimal patch, the ScalarEvolution implementation of getMinusSCEV
still ends up subtracting pointers if they have the same base. This
should eliminate the shared pointer base, but eventually we'll need to
rewrite it to avoid negating the pointer base. I plan to do this as a
separate step to allow measuring the compile-time impact.
This doesn't cause obvious functional changes in most cases; the one
case that is significantly affected is ICmpZero handling in LSR (which
is the source of almost all the test changes). The resulting changes
seem okay to me, but suggestions welcome. As an alternative, I tried
explicitly ptrtoint'ing the operands, but the result doesn't seem
obviously better.
I deleted the test lsr-undef-in-binop.ll becuase I couldn't figure out
how to repair it to test what it was actually trying to test.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104806
We have analogous rules in instsimplify, etc.., but were missing the same in SCEV. The fold is near trivial, but came up in the context of a larger change.
This patch extends applyLoopGuards to detect a single-cond range check
idiom that InstCombine generates.
It extends applyLoopGuards to detect conditions of the form
(-C1 + X < C2). InstCombine will create this form when combining two
checks of the form (X u< C2 + C1) and (X >=u C1).
In practice, this enables us to correctly compute a tight trip count
bounds for code as in the function below. InstCombine will fold the
minimum iteration check created by LoopRotate with the user check (< 8).
void unsigned_check(short *pred, unsigned width) {
if (width < 8) {
for (int x = 0; x < width; x++)
pred[x] = pred[x] * pred[x];
}
}
As a consequence, LLVM creates dead vector loops for the code above,
e.g. see https://godbolt.org/z/cb8eTcqEThttps://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/SHHW4d
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104741
This patch generalizes MatchBinaryAddToConst to support matching
(A + C1), (A + C2), instead of just matching (A + C1), A.
The existing cases can be handled by treating non-add expressions A as
A + 0.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104634
getPointerBase should only be looking through Add and AddRec
expressions; other expressions either aren't pointers, or can't be
looked through.
Technically, this is a functional change. For a multiply or min/max
expression, if they have exactly one pointer operand, and that operand
is the first operand, the behavior here changes. Similarly, if an AddRec
has a pointer-type step, the behavior changes. But that shouldn't be
happening in practice, and we plan to make such expressions illegal.
SCEVNAryExpr::getType() could return the wrong type for a SCEVAddExpr.
Remove it, and add getType() methods to the relevant subclasses.
NFC because nothing uses it directly, as far as I know; this is just
future-proofing.
This adds handling for signed predicates, similar to how unsigned
predicates are already handled.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104732
Currently we drop wrapping flags for expressions like (A + C1)<flags> - C2.
But we can retain flags under certain conditions:
* Adding a smaller constant is NUW if the original AddExpr was NUW.
* Adding a constant with the same sign and small magnitude is NSW, if the
original AddExpr was NSW.
This can improve results after using `SimplifyICmpOperands`, which may
subtract one in order to use stricter predicates, as is the case for
`isKnownPredicate`.
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104319
A backedge-taken count doesn't refer to memory; returning a pointer type
is nonsense. So make sure we always return an integer.
The obvious way to do this would be to just convert the operands of the
icmp to integers, but that doesn't quite work out at the moment:
isLoopEntryGuardedByCond currently gets confused by ptrtoint operations.
So we perform the ptrtoint conversion late for lt/gt operations.
The test changes are mostly innocuous. The most interesting changes are
more complex SCEV expressions of the form "(-1 * (ptrtoint i8* %ptr to
i64)) + %ptr)". This is expected: we can't fold this to zero because we
need to preserve the pointer base.
The call to isLoopEntryGuardedByCond in howFarToZero is less precise
because of ptrtoint operations; this shows up in the function
pr46786_c26_char in ptrtoint.ll. Fixing it here would require more
complex refactoring. It should eventually be fixed by future
improvements to isImpliedCond.
See https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46786 for context.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103656
Nikita Popov