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
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
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
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 adds handling for signed predicates, similar to how unsigned
predicates are already handled.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104732
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
The old version of this code would blindly perform arithmetic without
paying attention to whether the types involved were pointers or
integers. This could lead to weird expressions like negating a pointer.
Explicitly handle simple cases involving pointers, like "x < y ? x : y".
In all other cases, coerce the operands of the comparison to integer
types. This avoids the weird cases, while handling most of the
interesting cases.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103660
This addresses a performance regression reported against 3c6e4191. That change (correctly) limited a transform based on assumed finiteness to mustprogress loops, but the previous change (38540d7) which introduced the mustprogress check utility only handled function attributes, not the loop metadata form.
It turns out that clang uses the function attribute form for C++, and the loop metadata form for C. As a result, 3c6e4191 ended up being a large regression in practice for C code as loops weren't being considered mustprogress despite the language semantics.
Currently, NoWrapFlags are dropped if we inline operands of SCEVAddExpr
operands. As a consequence, we always drop flags when building
expressions like `getAddExpr(A, getAddExpr(B, C, NUW), NUW)`.
We should be able to retain NUW flags common among all inlined
SCEVAddExpr and the original flags.
Reviewed By: nikic, mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103877
Noticed via code inspection. We changed the semantics of the IR when we added mustprogress, and we appear to have not updated this location.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103834
The motivation here is simple loops with unsigned induction variables w/non-one steps. A toy example would be:
for (unsigned i = 0; i < N; i += 2) { body; }
Given C/C++ semantics, we do not get the nuw flag on the induction variable. Given that lack, we currently can't compute a bound for this loop. We can do better for many cases, depending on the contents of "body".
The basic intuition behind this patch is as follows:
* A step which evenly divides the iteration space must wrap through the same numbers repeatedly. And thus, we can ignore potential cornercases where we exit after the n-th wrap through uint32_max.
* Per C++ rules, infinite loops without side effects are UB. We already have code in SCEV which relies on this. In LLVM, this is tied to the mustprogress attribute.
Together, these let us conclude that the trip count of this loop must come before unsigned overflow unless the body would form a well defined infinite loop.
A couple notes for those reading along:
* I reused the loop properties code which is overly conservative for this case. I may follow up in another patch to generalize it for the actual UB rules.
* We could cache the n(s/u)w facts. I left that out because doing a pre-patch which cached existing inference showed a lot of diffs I had trouble fully explaining. I plan to get back to this, but I don't want it on the critical path.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103118
This patch implements getSmallConstantTripMultiple(L) correctly for multiple exit loops. The previous implementation was both imprecise, and violated the specified behavior of the method. This was fine in practice, because it turns out the function was both dead in real code, and not tested for the multiple exit case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103189
We already apply loop-guards when computing the maximum with unitary
steps. This extends the code to also do so when dealing with non-unitary
steps.
This allows us to infer a tighter maximum in some cases.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102267
applyLoopGuards() already combines conditions from multiple nested
guards. However, it cannot use multiple conditions on the same guard,
combined using and/or. Add support for this by recursing into either
`and` or `or`, depending on the direction of the branch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101692
Straight forward extension to the recently added infrastructure which was pioneered with shl. This was originally posted as part of D99687, but split off for ease of review.
(I also decided to exclude the unknown start sign case explicitly for simplicity of understanding.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101181
These can be handled the same way as ule/ult, just using umax
instead of umin. This is useful in cases where the umax prevents
the upper bound from overflowing.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101196
ICMP_NE predicates directly overwrote the rewritten result,
instead of chaining it with previous rewrites, as was done for
ICMP_ULT and ICMP_ULE. This means that some guards were effectively
discarded, depending on their order.
Philip Reames