Loop peeling is currently performed as part of UnrollLoop().
Outside test scenarios, it is always performed with an unroll
count of 1. This means that unrolling doesn't actually do anything
apart from performing post-unroll simplification.
When testing, it's currently possible to specify both an explicit
peel count and an explicit unroll count. This doesn't perform any
sensible operation and may result in miscompiles, see
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45939.
This patch moves peeling from UnrollLoop() into tryToUnrollLoop(),
so that peeling does not also perform a susequent unroll. We only
run the post-unroll simplifications. Specifying both an explicit
peel count and unroll count is forbidden.
In the future, we may want to support both (non-PGO) peeling a
loop and unrolling it, but this needs to be done by first performing
the peel and then recalculating unrolling heuristics on a now
possibly analyzable loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103362
The legacy pass is called "loop-unroll", but in the new PM it's called "unroll".
Also applied to unroll-and-jam and unroll-full.
Fixes various check-llvm tests when NPM is turned on.
Reviewed By: Whitney, dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82590
Summary:
This patch replaces incorrectt assert with a check. Previously it asserts that
if SCEV cannot prove `isKnownPredicate(A != B)`, then it should be able to prove
`isKnownPredicate(A == B)`.
Both these fact may be not provable. It is shown in the provided test:
Could not prove: `{-294,+,-2}<%bb1> != 0`
Asserting: `{-294,+,-2}<%bb1> == 0`
Obviously, this SCEV is not equal to zero, but 0 is in its range so we cannot
also prove that it is not zero.
Instead of assert, we should be checking the required conditions explicitly.
Reviewers: lebedev.ri, fhahn, sanjoy, fedor.sergeev
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, javed.absar, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76050
Nikita Popov