This fixes an issue exposed by D71539, where IndVarSimplify tries
to access an invalid cached SCEV expression after making changes to the
underlying PHI instruction earlier.
When changing the incoming value of a PHI, forget the cached SCEV for
the PHI.
Only the most recent cpus support really 1cy 64-bit multiplies, and the X64 cost table represents a realistic worst case. The 1cy value was also discouraging vectorization when most vXi64 PMULDQ expansions aren't actually slower than scalarization.
Noticed while investigating PR51436.
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
All transforms of IndVars have prerequisite requirement of LCSSA and LoopSimplify
form and rely on it. Added test that shows that this actually stands.
This reverts commit 6fec6552f5.
The patch was reverted on incorrect claim that this patch may break LCSSA form
when the loop is not in a simplify form. All IndVars' transform insure that
the loop is in simplify and LCSSA form, so if it wasn't broken before this
transform, it will also not be broken after it.
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
Implement TODO in optimizeLoopExits. Now if we have proved that some loop exit
is taken on 1st iteration, we make all branches in the following exiting blocks
always branch out of the loop and their conditions simplified away.
Patch by Dmitry Makogon!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108910
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
This is a part of D108910.
We replace all loop PHIs with values coming from the loop preheader if
we proved that backedge is never taken.
Patch by Dmitry Makogon!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109596
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
`isValidRewrite()` checks that the both the original SCEV,
and the rewrite SCEV have the same base pointer.
I //believe//, after all the recent SCEV improvements,
this invariant is already enforced by SCEV itself.
I originally tried changing it into an assert in D108043,
but that showed that it triggers on e.g. https://reviews.llvm.org/D108043#2946621,
where SCEV manages to forward the store to load,
test added.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108655
Changes since aec08e:
* Adjust placement of a closing brace so that the general case actually runs. Turns out we had *no* coverage of the switch case. I added one in eae90fd.
* Drop .llvm.loop.* metadata from the new branch as there is no longer a loop to annotate.
Original commit message:
This special cases an unconditional latch and a conditional branch latch exit to improve codegen and test readability. I am hoping to reuse this function in the runtime unroll code, but without this change, the test diffs are far too complex to assess.
This special cases an unconditional latch and a conditional branch latch exit to improve codegen and test readability. I am hoping to reuse this function in the runtime unroll code, but without this change, the test diffs are far too complex to assess.
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
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
I think currently isImpliedViaMerge can incorrectly return true for phis
in a loop/cycle, if the found condition involves the previous value of
Consider the case in exit_cond_depends_on_inner_loop.
At some point, we call (modulo simplifications)
isImpliedViaMerge(<=, %x.lcssa, -1, %call, -1).
The existing code tries to prove IncV <= -1 for all incoming values
InvV using the found condition (%call <= -1). At the moment this succeeds,
but only because it does not compare the same runtime value. The found
condition checks the value of the last iteration, but the incoming value
is from the *previous* iteration.
Hence we incorrectly determine that the *previous* value was <= -1,
which may not be true.
I think we need to be more careful when looking at the incoming values
here. In particular, we need to rule out that a found condition refers to
any value that may refer to one of the previous iterations. I'm not sure
there's a reliable way to do so (that also works of irreducible control
flow).
So for now this patch adds an additional requirement that the incoming
value must properly dominate the phi block. This should ensure the
values do not change in a cycle. I am not entirely sure if will catch
all cases and I appreciate a through second look in that regard.
Alternatively we could also unconditionally bail out in this case,
instead of checking the incoming values
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101829
The test is a crasher reduced from:
https://llvm.org/PR49993
linearFunctionTestReplace() assumes that we have an add recurrence,
so check for that as a condition of matching a loop counter.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101291
As being discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D100721,
this modelling is lossy, we can't reconstruct `ash`/`ashr exact`
from it, which means that whenever we actually expand the IR,
we've just pessimized the code..
It would be good to model this pattern, after all it comes up every time
you want to compute a distance between two pointers, but not at this cost.
This reverts commit ec54867df5.
When eliminating comparisons, we can use common dominator of
all its users as context. This gives better results when ICMP is not
computed right before the branch that uses it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98924
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
We can prove more predicates when we have a context when eliminating ICmp.
As first (and very obvious) approximation we can use the ICmp instruction itself,
though in the future we are going to use a common dominator of all its users.
Need some refactoring before that.
Observed ~0.5% negative compile time impact.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98697
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
By definition of Implication operator, `false -> true` and `false -> false`. It means that
`false` implies any predicate, no matter true or false. We don't need to go any further
trying to prove the statement we need and just always say that `false` implies it in this case.
In practice it means that we are trying to prove something guarded by `false` condition,
which means that this code is unreachable, and we can safely prove any fact or perform any
transform in this code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98706
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
This reverts commit 329aeb5db4,
and relands commit 61f006ac65.
This is a continuation of D89456.
As it was suggested there, now that SCEV models `PtrToInt`,
we can try to improve SCEV's pointer handling.
In particular, i believe, i will need this in the future
to further fix `SCEVAddExpr`operation type handling.
This removes special handling of `ConstantPointerNull`
from `ScalarEvolution::createSCEV()`, and add constant folding
into `ScalarEvolution::getPtrToIntExpr()`.
This way, `null` constants stay as such in SCEV's,
but gracefully become zero integers when asked.
Reviewed By: Meinersbur
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98147
This is a continuation of D89456.
As it was suggested there, now that SCEV models `PtrToInt`,
we can try to improve SCEV's pointer handling.
In particular, i believe, i will need this in the future
to further fix `SCEVAddExpr`operation type handling.
This removes special handling of `ConstantPointerNull`
from `ScalarEvolution::createSCEV()`, and add constant folding
into `ScalarEvolution::getPtrToIntExpr()`.
This way, `null` constants stay as such in SCEV's,
but gracefully become zero integers when asked.
Reviewed By: Meinersbur
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98147
If we have a recurrence of the form <Start, And, Step> we know that the value taken by the recurrence stabilizes on the first iteration (provided step is loop invariant). We can exploit that fact to remove the loop carried dependence in the recurrence.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97578 (and part)
These intrinsics, not the icmp+select are the canonical form nowadays,
so we might as well directly emit them.
This should not cause any regressions, but if it does,
then then they would needed to be fixed regardless.
Note that this doesn't deal with `SCEVExpander::isHighCostExpansion()`,
but that is a pessimization, not a correctness issue.
Additionally, the non-intrinsic form has issues with undef,
see https://reviews.llvm.org/D88287#2587863
This builds on the restricted after initial revert form of D93906, and adds back support for breaking backedges of inner loops. It turns out the original invalidation logic wasn't quite right, specifically around the handling of LCSSA.
When breaking the backedge of an inner loop, we can cause blocks which were in the outer loop only because they were also included in a sub-loop to be removed from both loops. This results in the exit block set for our original parent loop changing, and thus a need for new LCSSA phi nodes.
This case happens when the inner loop has an exit block which is also an exit block of the parent, and there's a block in the child which reaches an exit to said block without also reaching an exit to the parent loop.
(I'm describing this in terms of the immediate parent, but the problem is general for any transitive parent in the nest.)
The approach implemented here involves a potentially expensive LCSSA rebuild. Perf testing during review didn't show anything concerning, but we may end up needing to revert this if anyone encounters a practical compile time issue.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94378
Florian Hahn