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
Second functional change following on from rL362687. Pass the
NoWrapFlags from the MulExpr to InsertBinop when we're generating a
shl or mul.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61934
llvm-svn: 363540
If the given SCEVExpr has no (un)signed flags attached to it, transfer
these to the resulting instruction or use them to find an existing
instruction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61934
llvm-svn: 362687
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
This gets rid of a bunch of weird special cases; instead, just use SCEV
rewriting for everything. In addition to being simpler, this fixes a
bug where we would use the wrong stride in certain edge cases.
The one bit I'm not quite sure about is the trip count handling,
specifically the FIXME about overflow. In general, I think we need to
widen the exit condition, but that's probably not profitable if the new
type isn't legal, so we probably need a check somewhere. That said, I
don't think I'm making the existing problem any worse.
As a followup to this, a bunch of IV-related code in root-finding could
be cleaned up; with SCEV-based rewriting, there isn't any reason to
assume a loop will have exactly one or two PHI nodes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45191
llvm-svn: 335400
Eli Friedman