Upon further investigation and discussion,
this is actually the opposite direction from what we should be taking,
and this direction wouldn't solve the motivational problem anyway.
Additionally, some more (polly) tests have escaped being updated.
So, let's just take a step back here.
This reverts commit f3190dedee.
This reverts commit 749581d21f.
This reverts commit f3df87d57e.
This reverts commit ab1dbcecd6.
There's precedent for that in `CreateOr()`/`CreateAnd()`.
The motivation here is to avoid bloating the run-time check's IR
in `SCEVExpander::generateOverflowCheck()`.
Refs. https://reviews.llvm.org/D109368#3089809
It's a no-op, no overflow happens ever: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/Zw89rZ
While generally i don't like such hacks,
we have a very good reason to do this: here we are expanding
a run-time correctness check for the vectorization,
and said `umul_with_overflow` will not be optimized out
before we query the cost of the checks we've generated.
Which means, the cost of run-time checks would be artificially inflated,
and after https://reviews.llvm.org/D109368 that will affect
the minimal trip count for which these checks are even evaluated.
And if they aren't even evaluated, then the vectorized code
certainly won't be run.
We could consider doing this in IRBuilder, but then we'd need to
also teach `CreateExtractValue()` to look into chain of `insertvalue`'s,
and i'm not sure there's precedent for that.
Refs. https://reviews.llvm.org/D109368#3089809
While we could emit such a tautological `select`,
it will stick around until the next instsimplify invocation,
which may happen after we count the cost of this redundant `select`.
Which is precisely what happens with loop vectorization legality checks,
and that artificially increases the cost of said checks,
which is bad.
There is prior art for this in `IRBuilderBase::CreateAnd()`/`IRBuilderBase::CreateOr()`.
Refs. https://reviews.llvm.org/D109368#3089809
This simplifies the return value of addRuntimeCheck from a pair of
instructions to a single `Value *`.
The existing users of addRuntimeChecks were ignoring the first element
of the pair, hence there is not reason to track FirstInst and return
it.
Additionally all users of addRuntimeChecks use the second returned
`Instruction *` just as `Value *`, so there is no need to return an
`Instruction *`. Therefore there is no need to create a redundant
dummy `and X, true` instruction any longer.
Effectively this change should not impact the generated code because the
redundant AND will be folded by later optimizations. But it is easy to
avoid creating it in the first place and it allows more accurately
estimating the cost of the runtime checks.
Roman Lebedev