This patch adds support for implication inference logic for the
following pattern:
```
lhs < (y >> z) <= y, y <= rhs --> lhs < rhs
```
We should be able to use the fact that value shifted to right is
not greater than the original value (provided it is non-negative).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116150
Reviewed-By: apilipenko
Two crashes have been reported. This change disables the new logic while leaving the new node in tree. Hopefully, that's enough to allow investigation without breakage while avoiding massive churn.
As discussed in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53020 / https://reviews.llvm.org/D116692,
SCEV is forbidden from reasoning about 'backedge taken count'
if the branch condition is a poison-safe logical operation,
which is conservatively correct, but is severely limiting.
Instead, we should have a way to express those
poison blocking properties in SCEV expressions.
The proposed semantics is:
```
Sequential/in-order min/max SCEV expressions are non-commutative variants
of commutative min/max SCEV expressions. If none of their operands
are poison, then they are functionally equivalent, otherwise,
if the operand that represents the saturation point* of given expression,
comes before the first poison operand, then the whole expression is not poison,
but is said saturation point.
```
* saturation point - the maximal/minimal possible integer value for the given type
The lowering is straight-forward:
```
compare each operand to the saturation point,
perform sequential in-order logical-or (poison-safe!) ordered reduction
over those checks, and if reduction returned true then return
saturation point else return the naive min/max reduction over the operands
```
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/Q7jxvH (2 ops)
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/QCRrhk (3 ops)
Note that we don't need to check the last operand: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/abvHQS
Note that this is not commutative: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/FK9e97
That allows us to handle the patterns in question.
Reviewed By: nikic, reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116766
Remove the assertion about the pointer element type, only check
that the stride is one. Ultimately, the actual pointer type here
doesn't matter, because SCEVExpander would insert appropriate
casts if necessary.
ValuesAtScopes maps a SCEV and a Loop to another SCEV. While we
invalidate entries if the left-hand SCEV is invalidated, we
currently don't do this for the right-hand SCEV. Fix this by
tracking users in a reverse map and using it for invalidation.
This is conceptually the same change as D114738, but using the
reverse map to avoid performance issues.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114788
The basic problem we have is that we're trying to reuse an instruction which is mapped to some SCEV. Since we can have multiple such instructions (potentially with different flags), this is analogous to our need to drop flags when performing CSE. A trivial implementation would simply drop flags on any instruction we decided to reuse, and that would be correct.
This patch is almost that trivial patch except that we preserve flags on the reused instruction when existing users would imply UB on overflow already. Adding new users can, at most, refine this program to one which doesn't execute UB which is valid.
In practice, this fixes two conceptual problems with the previous code: 1) a binop could have been canonicalized into a form with different opcode or operands, or 2) the inbounds GEP case which was simply unhandled.
On the test changes, most are pretty straight forward. We loose some flags (in some cases, they'd have been dropped on the next CSE pass anyways). The one that took me the longest to understand was the ashr-expansion test. What's happening there is that we're considering reuse of the mul, previously we disallowed it entirely, now we allow it with no flags. The surrounding diffs are all effects of generating the same mul with a different operand order, and then doing simple DCE.
The loss of the inbounds is unfortunate, but even there, we can recover most of those once we actually treat branch-on-poison as immediate UB.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112734
rGf39978b84f1d3a1da6c32db48f64c8daae64b3ad led to and/or exposed
an issue with IndVarSimplification for a loop where a i32 phi node is
no longer replaced by a widened (i64) phi node, because the SCEVs of a
sign-extend no longer folded the same way. I'm unsure how to properly
explain this because it's all rather complicated, but in short: SCEVs
don't fold as nicely as they used to and this caused a difference.
While investigating this, I found that IndVarSimplify can actually
optimise the case in the way we want to if it chooses the widened IV to
be 'signed' (the i32 IV is both sign and zero-extended). Oddly enough,
there is some level of indeterminism in the way the algorithm works,
it just picks the sign of the 'first' zext/sext user, where the order of
the users-iterator is not guaranteed to be the same on each invocation
of the pass (e.g. shown by first running loop-rotate, which puts the
users in a different order).
While I think the fix is valid in the sense that consistently picking
_any_ order is better than having an nondeterministic order, I can
use a bit of advice from people more familiar in this area of the
code-base.
For example, I'm not sure if this fix is hiding another issue where the
IndVarSimplify pass could actually draw the same conclusions (i.e. that
it only needs an i64 phi node) if it does a bit more work, regardless
of whether it chooses the induction variable to be signed or unsigned.
I'm also not sure if choosing signed is better than unsigned, or whether
that just happens to be beneficial only in this individual case.
Any feedback would be much appreciated!
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112573
This reverts commit 7cd273c339.
Several patches with tests fixes have been applied:
0cada82f0a "[Test] Remove incorrect test in GVN"
97cb13615d "[Test] Separate IndVars test into AArch64 and X86 parts"
985cc490f1 "[Test] Remove separated test in IndVars",
and test failures caused by 5ec2386 should be resolved now.
The widen-loop-comp.ll in indvars has a target triple with
specified aarch64 architecture. This caused test failures with
db28934 "[IndVars] Pass TTI to replaceCongruentIVs" applied, because
with the patch indvars performed some target-specific
transforms, and for example if a build supported only X86,
then indvars would not have applied those transforms.
However, the checks in the test were generated as for aarch64.
Thus the test failures on such builds.
This patch separates widen-loop-comp.ll into two parts.
The first one is intended to be run only if a build supports aarch64.
This is now in AArch64 directory with a lit config.
The second one was added recently to show db28934 improvements.
This one is now in X86 directory.
This patch should resolve build issues caused by
5ec2386332.
This reapplies patch db289340c8.
The test failures on build with expensive checks caused by the patch happened due
to the fact that we sorted loop Phis in replaceCongruentIVs using llvm::sort,
which shuffles the given container if the expensive checks are enabled,
so equivalent Phis in the sorted vector had different mutual order from run
to run. replaceCongruentIVs tries to replace narrow Phis with truncations
of wide ones. In some test cases there were several Phis with the same
width, so if their order differs from run to run, the narrow Phis would
be replaced with a different Phi, depending on the shuffling result.
The patch ae14fae0ff fixed this issue by
replacing llvm::sort with llvm::stable_sort.
In IndVarSimplify after simplifying and extending loop IVs we call 'replaceCongruentIVs'.
This function optionally takes a TTI argument to be able to replace narrow IVs uses
with truncates of the widest one.
For some reason the TTI wasn't passed to the function, so it couldn't perform such
transform.
This patch fixes it.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113024
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
This relaxes the one-use requirement on the rotation transform specifically for the case where we know we're zexting an IV of the loop. This allows us to discover trip count information in SCEV, which seems worth a single extra loop invariant truncate. Honestly, I'd prefer if SCEV could just compute the trip count directly (e.g. D109457), but this unblocks practical benefit.
Not sure these are correct. I think I missed a case when porting this from the original SCEV change to the IndVar changes. I may end up reapplying this later with a comment about how this is correct, but in case the current bad feeling turns out to be true, I'm removing from tree while investigating further.
This change looks for cases where we can prove that an exit test of a loop can be performed in a narrower bitwidth, and that by doing so we can replace a loop-varying extend with a loop-invariant truncate.
The motivation here is that doing this unblocks the trip count analysis for narrow IVs involved in extended compare exit tests. It also has the nice side effect of simply making the code faster, even if we gain no other benefit from the improved analysis ability.
I've noted a few places this could be extended, but I think this stands reasonable on it's own as well.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112262
In the added cases we have two congruent IVs. IndVars widens at least one of them.
If they are both widened, then one of them is erased as they stay congruent after
widening. However if only one IV is widened, the other one stays in the loop.
We can simply erase the narrow IV and replace its uses with truncates of the
widest IV.
The recently added logic to canonicalize exit conditions to unsigned relies on facts which hold about the use (i.e. exit test). Applying this blindly to the icmp is not legal, as there may be another use which never reaches the exit. Restrict ourselves to case where we have a single use.
The logic in this patch is that if we find a comparison which would be unsigned except for when the loop is infinite, and we can prove that an infinite loop must be ill defined, we can still make the predicate unsigned.
The eventual goal (combined with a follow on patch) is to use the fact the loop exits to remove the zext (see tests) entirely.
A couple of points worth noting:
* We loose the ability to prove the loop unreachable by committing to the must exit interpretation. If instead, we later proved that rhs was definitely outside the range required for finiteness, we could have killed the loop entirely. (We don't currently implement this transform, but could in theory, do so.)
* simplifyAndExtend has a very limited list of users it walks. In particular, in the examples is stops at the zext and never visits the icmp. (Because we can't fold the zext to an addrec yet in SCEV.) Being willing to visit when we haven't simplified regresses multiple tests (seemingly because of less optimal results when computing trip counts). D112170 explores fixing that, but - at least so far - appears to be too expensive compile time wise.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111836
At the moment, rewriteLoopExitValue forgets the current phi node in the
loop that collects phis to rewrite. A few lines after the value is
forgotten, SCEV is used again to analyze incoming values and
potentially expand SCEV expression. This means that another SCEV is
created for PN, before the IR is actually updated in the next loop.
This leads to accessing invalid cached expression in combination with
D71539.
PN should only be changed once the actual incoming exit value is set in
the next loop. Moving invalidation there should ensure that PN is
invalidated in all relevant cases.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111495
This is trivial. It was left out of the original review only because we had multiple copies of the same code in review at the same time, and keeping them in sync was easiest if the structure was kept in sync.
This patch duplicates a bit of logic we apply to comparisons encountered during the IV users walk to conditions which feed exit conditions. Why? simplifyAndExtend has a very limited list of users it walks. In particular, in the examples is stops at the zext and never visits the icmp. (Because we can't fold the zext to an addrec yet in SCEV.) Being willing to visit when we haven't simplified regresses multiple tests (seemingly because of less optimal results when computing trip counts).
Note that this can be trivially extended to multiple exiting blocks. I'm leaving that to a future patch (solely to cut down on the number of versions of the same code in review at once.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111896
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
This shows the transform side of D109457, but also lets us try other approaches to the same problem. The common trend to all is that we need to explicit reason about UB to disallow possibility of infinite loops.
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 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
Nikita Popov