attempts
Prevent the selection of IVs that have a SCEV containing an undef. Also
prevent salvaging attempts for values for which a SCEV could not be
created by ScalarEvolution and have only SCEVUknown.
Reviewed by: Orlando
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111810
The basic idea here is that given a zero extended narrow IV, we can prove the inner IV to be NUW if we can prove there's a value the inner IV must take before overflow which must exit the loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109457
Data references in a loop should not access elements over the
statically allocated size. So we can infer a loop max trip count
from this undefined behavior.
Reviewed By: reames, mkazantsev, nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109821
It it now sufficient to track only direct addrec users of a loop,
and let the SCEVUsers mechanism track and invalidate transitive users.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112875
This function is used at least in 2 places, to it makes sense to make it separate.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112516
Reviewed By: reames
Following discussion in D110390, it seems that we are suffering from unability
to traverse users of a SCEV being invalidated. The result of that is that ScalarEvolution's
inner caches may store obsolete data about SCEVs even if their operands are
forgotten. It creates problems when we try to verify the contents of those caches.
It's also a frequent situation when messing with cache causes very sneaky and
hard-to-analyze bugs related to corruption of memory when dealing with cached
data. They are lurking there because ScalarEvolution's veirfication is not powerful
enough and misses many problematic cases. I plan to make SCEV's verification
much stricter in follow-ups, and this requires dangling-pointers-free caches.
This patch makes sure that, whenever we forget cached information for a SCEV,
we also forget it for all SCEVs that (transitively) use it.
This may have negative compile time impact. It's a sacrifice we are more
than willing to make to enforce correctness. We can also save some time by
reworking invokers of forgetMemoizedResults (maybe we can forget multiple
SCEVs with single query).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111533
Reviewed By: reames
Make sure that, for every living SCEV, we have all its direct
operand tracking it as their user.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112402
Reviewed By: reames
Always insert values into ExprValueMap, and instead skip using them
in SCEVExpander if poison-generating flags have been lost. This
ensures that all values that are in ValueExprMap are also in
ExprValueMap, so we can use the latter to invalidate the former.
This change is probably not entirely NFC for the case where
originally the SCEV had no nowrap flags but they were inferred
later, in which case that would now allow reusing the existing
value for expansion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112389
Mass forgetMemoizedResults can be done more efficiently than bunch
of individual invocations of helper because we can traverse maps being
updated just once, rather than doing this for each invidivual SCEV.
Should be NFC and supposedly improves compile time.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112294
Reviewed By: reames
When forgetting multiple SCEVs, rather than doing this one by one, we can
instead use mass updates. We plan to make them more efficient than they
are now, potentially improving compile time.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111602
Reviewed By: reames
This patch changes signature of forgetMemoizedResults to be able to work with
multiple SCEVs. Usage will come in follow-ups. We also plan to optimize it in the
future to work faster than individual invalidation updates. Should not change
behavior in any sense.
Split-off from D111602.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112293
Reviewed By: reames
Follow-up from D112295, suggested by Nikita: we can avoid tracking
users of SCEVConstants because dropping their cached info is unlikely
to give any new prospects for fact inference, and it should not introduce
any correctness problems.
This patch introduces API that keeps track of SCEVs users of
another SCEVs, required to handle invalidations of users along
with operands that comes in follow-up patches.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112295
Reviewed By: reames
The functionality of this method is already covered by
computeExitCountExhaustively() in a more general fashion. It was
added at a time when exhaustive exit count calculation did not
support constant folding loads yet. I double checked that dropping
this code causes no binary changes in test-suite.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112343
As seen in PR51869 the ScalarEvolution::isImpliedCond function might
end up spending lots of time when doing the isKnownPredicate checks.
Calling isKnownPredicate for example result in isKnownViaInduction
being called, which might result in isLoopBackedgeGuardedByCond being
called, and then we might get one or more new calls to isImpliedCond.
Even if the scenario described here isn't an infinite loop, using
some random generated C programs as input indicates that those
isKnownPredicate checks quite often returns true. On the other hand,
the third condition that needs to be fulfilled in order to "prove
implications via truncation", i.e. the isImpliedCondBalancedTypes
check, is rarely fulfilled.
I also made some similar experiments to look at how often we would
get the same result when using isKnownViaNonRecursiveReasoning instead
of isKnownPredicate. So far I haven't seen a single case when codegen
is negatively impacted by using isKnownViaNonRecursiveReasoning. On
the other hand, it seems like we get rid of the compile time explosion
seen in PR51869 that way. Hence this patch.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112080
This patch teaches SCEV two implication rules:
x <u y && y >=s 0 --> x <s y,
x <s y && y <s 0 --> x <u y.
And all equivalents with signs/parts swapped.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110517
Reviewed By: nikic
Current implementations of DFS in SCEV check unique-visited of traversed
values on pop, and not on push. As result, the same value may be pushed
multiple times just to be thrown away when popped. These operations are
meaningless and only waste time and increase memory footprint of the
worklist.
This patch reworks the DFS strategy to check uniqueness before push.
Should be NFC.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111774
Reviewed By: nikic, reames
Replace check with
if ((ExitIfTrue && CI->isZero()) || (!ExitIfTrue && CI->isOne()))
with equivalent and simpler version
if (ExitIfTrue == CI->isZero())
As a brief reminder, an "exit count" is the number of times the backedge executes before some event. It can be zero if we exit before the backedge is reached. A "trip count" is the number of times the loop header is entered if we branch into the loop. In general, TC = BTC + 1 and thus a zero trip count is ill defined
There is a cornercases which we don't handle well. Let's assume i8 for our examples to keep things simple. If BTC = 255, then the correct trip count is 256. However, 256 is not representable in i8.
In theory, code which needs to reason about trip counts is responsible for checking for this cornercase, and either bailing out, or handling it correctly. Historically, we don't have a great track record about actually doing so.
When reviewing D109676, I found myself asking a basic question. Was there any good reason to preserve the current wrap-to-zero behavior when converting from backedge taken counts to trip counts? After reviewing existing code, I could not find a single case which appears to correctly and precisely handle the overflow case.
This patch changes the default behavior to extend instead of wrap. That is, if the result might be 256, we return a value of i9 type to ensure we interpret the count correctly. I did leave the legacy behavior as an option since a) loop-flatten stops triggering if I extend due to weirdly specific pattern matching I didn't understand and b) we could reasonably use the mode if we'd externally established a lack of overflow.
I want to emphasize that this change is *not* NFC. There are two call sites (one in ScalarEvolution.cpp, one in LoopCacheAnalysis.cpp) which are switched to the extend semantics. The former appears imprecise (but correct) for a constant 255 BTC. The later appears incorrect, though I don't have a test case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110587
This factors out utilities for scanning a bounded block of instructions since we have this code repeated in a bunch of places. The change to InlineFunction isn't strictly NFC as the limit mechanism there didn't handle debug instructions correctly.
When checking to see if we can apply IR flags to a SCEV, we need to identify a bound on the defining scope of the SCEV to be produced. We'd previously added support for a couple SCEVExpr types which trivially imply bounds, but hadn't handled types such as umax where the bounds come from the bounds of the operands. This does the obvious thing, and recurses through operands searching for a tighter bound on the defining scope.
I'm honestly surprised by how little this seems to mater on existing tests, but it's worth doing for completeness sake alone.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111191
When determining the defining scope, avoid repeatedly querying
dominationg against the function entry instruction. This ends up
begin a very common case that we can handle more efficiently.
This patch removes a compile time restriction from isSCEVExprNeverPoison. We've strengthened our ability to reason about flags on scopes other than addrecs, and this bailout prevents us from using it. The comment is also suspect as well in that we're in the middle of constructing a SCEV for I. As such, we're going to visit all operands *anyways*.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111186
Behavior wise, this patch should be mostly NFC. The only behavior difference known is that on the isSCEVExprNeverPoison path we'll consider a bound imposed by the SCEVable operands (if any).
Algorithmically, it's an invert of the existing code. Previously, we checked for each operand if we could find a bound, then checked for must-execute given that bound. With the patch, we use dominance to refine the innermost bound, then check must execute once. The interesting case is when we have multiple unknowns within a single basic block. While both dominance and must-execute are worst-case linear walks within the block, only dominance is cached. As such, refining based on dominance should be more efficient.
Stop using APInt constructors and methods that were soft-deprecated in
D109483. This fixes all the uses I found in llvm, except for the APInt
unit tests which should still test the deprecated methods.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110807
This addresses a comment from review on D109845. The concern was raised that an unbounded scan would be expensive. Long term plan is to cache this search - likely reusing the existing mechanism for loop side effects - but let's be simple and conservative for now.
This addresses a comment from review on D109845. Even for SCEVs which we can't find true bounds without recursing through operands, entry to the function forms a trivial upper bound. In some cases, this trivial bound is enough to prove safety of flag inference.
This is a followon to D109845. With that landed, we will have fixed all known instances of pr51817, and can thus start inferring flags more aggressively with greatly reduced risk of miscompiles. This patch simply applies the same inference logic used in that patch to our other major flag inference path.
We can still do much better here (on both paths), but this is our first step.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111003
This fixes a violation of the wrap flag rules introduced in c4048d8f. This is an alternate fix to D106852.
The basic problem being fixed is that we infer a set of flags which is valid at some inner scope S1 (usually by correctly propagating them from IR), and then (incorrectly) extend them to a SCEV in scope S2 where S1 != S2. This is not in general safe per the wrap flags semantics recently defined.
In this patch, I include a simple inference step to handle the case where we can prove that S2 is the preheader of the loop S1, and that entry into S2 implies execution of S1. See the code for a more detailed explanation.
One worry I have with this patch is that I might be over-fitting what shows up in tests - and thus hiding negative impact we'd see in the real world. My best defense is that the rule used here very closely follows the one used to propagate the flags from IR to the inner add to start with, and thus if one is reasonable, so probably is the other. Curious what others think about that piece.
The test diffs are roughly as expected. Mostly analysis only, with two transform changes. Oddly, the result looks better in the loop-idiom test, and I don't understand the PPC output enough to have tell. Nothing terrible looking though. (For context, without the scope inference peephole, the test delta includes a couple of vectorization tests. Again, not super concerning, but slightly more so.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109845
This fixes a violation of the wrap flag rules introduced in c4048d8f. This was also noted in the (very old) PR23527.
The issue being fixed is that we assume the inbound flag on any GEP assumes that all users of *any* gep (or add) which happens to map to that SCEV would also be UB if the (other) gep overflowed. That's simply not true.
In terms of the test diffs, I don't see anything seriously problematic. The lost flags are expected (given the semantic restriction on when its legal to tag the SCEV), and there are several cases where the previously inferred flags are unsound per the new semantics.
The only common trend I noticed when looking at the deltas is that by not considering branch on poison as immediate UB in ValueTracking, we do miss a few cases we could reclaim. We may be able to claw some of these back with the follow ideas mentioned in PR51817.
It's worth noting that most of the changes are analysis result only changes. The two transform changes are pretty minimal. In one case, we miss the opportunity to infer a nuw (correctly). In the other, we fail to fold an exit and produce a loop invariant form instead. This one is probably over-reduced as the program appears to be undefined in practice, and neither before or after exploits that.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109789
This code is attempting to prove that I must execute if we enter the defining scope of the SCEV which will be created from I. In the case where it found a defining addrec scope, it had a rather odd restriction that all of the other operands must be loop invariant in that addrec's loop.
As near as I can tell here, we really only need a upper bound on the defining scope. If we can prove the stronger property, then we must also have proven the property on the exact defining scope as well.
In practice, the actual effect of this change is narrow. The compile time restriction at the top of the routine basically limits us to I being an arithmetic in some loop L with both an addrec operand in L, and a unknown operands in L. Possible to demonstrate, but the main value of the change is removing unneeded code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110892
This reverts commit 8fdac7cb7a.
The issue causing the revert has been fixed a while ago in 60b852092c.
Original message:
Now that SCEVExpander can preserve LCSSA form,
we do not have to worry about LCSSA form when
trying to look through PHIs. SCEVExpander will take
care of inserting LCSSA PHI nodes as required.
This increases precision of the analysis in some cases.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev, bmahjour
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71539
The logic in howManyLessThans is fishy. It first checks invariance of
RHS, and then uses OrigRHS as argument for isLoopEntryGuardedByCond, which
is, strictly saying, a different thing. We are seeing a very rare intermittent
failure of availability checks, and it looks like this precondition is
sometimes broken. Before we can figure out what's going on, adding asserts
that all involved values that may possibly to to isLoopEntryGuardedByCond
are available at loop entry.
If either of these asserts fails (OrigRHS is the most likely suspect), it
means that the logic here is flawed.
The implication logic for two values that are both negative or non-negative
says that it doesn't matter whether their predicate is signed and unsigned,
but only flips unsigned into signed for further inference. This patch adds
support for flipping a signed predicate into unsigned as well.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109959
Reviewed By: nikic
There is a piece of logic that uses the fact that signed and unsigned
versions of the same predicate are equivalent when both values are
non-negative. It's also true when both of them are negative.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109957
Reviewed By: nikic
This fixes a violation of the wrap flag rules introduced in c4048d8f. As noted in the original review, the NUW is legal to infer from the structure of the replacee, but a) there's no test coverage, and b) this should be done generically for all multiplies.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109782
It's possible in some cases for the LHS to be a pointer where the RHS is not. This isn't directly possible for an icmp, but the analysis mixes up operands of different icmp expressions in some cases.
This does not include a test case as the smallest reduced case we've managed is extremely fragile and unlikely to test anything meaningful in the long term.
Also add an assertion to getNotSCEV() to make tracking down this sort of issue a bit easier in the future.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51787 .
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109546
This bit of code is incredibly suspicious. It allows fully unknown (but potentially negative) steps, but not steps known to be negative. The comment about scev flag inference is worrying, but also not correct to my knowledge.
At best, this might be covering up some related miscompile. However, there's no test in tree for it, the review history doesn't include obvious motivation, and the C++ example doesn't appear to give wrong results when hand translated to IR. I think it's time to remove this and see what falls out.
During review, there were concerns raised about the correctness of the corresponding signed case. This change was deliberately narrowed to the unsigned case which has been auditted and appears correct for negative values. We need to get back to the known-negative signed case, but that'll be a future patch if nothing falls out from this one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104140
In general, howManyLessThans doesn't really want to work with pointers
at all; the result is an integer, and the operands of the icmp are
effectively integers. However, isLoopEntryGuardedByCond doesn't like
extra ptrtoint casts, so the arguments to isLoopEntryGuardedByCond need
to be computed without those casts.
Somehow, the values got mixed up with the recent howManyLessThans
improvements; fix the confused values, and add a better comment to
explain what's happening.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109465
We were returning a tuple when all but one caller only cared about one piece of the return value. That one caller can inline the complexity, and we can simplify all other uses.
None of this logic has anything to do with SCEV's internals, it just uses the existing public APIs. As a result, we can move the code from ScalarEvolution.cpp/hpp to Delinearization.cpp/hpp with only minor changes.
This was discussed in advance on today's loop opt call. It turned out to be easy as hoped.
The basic problem being solved is that we largely give up when encountering a trip count involving an IV which is not an addrec. We will fall back to the brute force constant eval, but that doesn't have the information about the fact that we can't cycle back through the same set of values.
There's a high level design question of whether this is the right place to handle this, and if not, where that place is. The major alternative here would be to return a conservative upper bound, and then rely on two invocations of indvars to add the facts to the narrow IV, and then reconstruct SCEV. (I have not implemented the alternative and am not 100% sure this would work out.) That's arguably more in line with existing code, but I find this substantially easier to reason about. During review, no one expressed a strong opinion, so we went with this one.
Differential Revision: D108651
Follow on to D109029. I realized we had no mention of mustprogrress in the comment (as it prexisted mustprogress in the codebase). In the process of adding it, I tweaked the preconditions into something I think is more clear. Note that mustprogress is checked in the code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109091
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.
Florian Hahn