What we want to know here is whether we're already using this value
for the loop condition, so make the query about that. We can extend
this to a more general "based-on" relationship, rather than a direct
icmp use later.
llvm-svn: 364715
The whole indvars pass works on loops in simplified form, so there
is always a unique latch. Convert the condition into an assertion
in needsLFTR (though we also assert this in later LFTR functions).
Additionally update the comment on getLoopTest() now that we are
dealing with multiple exits.
llvm-svn: 364713
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41998. Usually when we
have a truncated exit count we'll truncate the IV when comparing
against the limit, in which case exit count overflow in post-inc
form doesn't matter. However, for pointer IVs we don't do that, so
we have to be careful about incrementing the IV in the wide type.
I'm fixing this by removing the IVCount variable (which was
ExitCount or ExitCount+1) and replacing it with a UsePostInc flag,
and then moving the actual limit adjustment to the individual cases
(which are: pointer IV where we add to the wide type, integer IV
where we add to the narrow type, and constant integer IV where we
add to the wide type).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63686
llvm-svn: 364709
In rL364135, I taught IndVars to fold exiting branches in loops with a zero backedge taken count (i.e. loops that only run one iteration). This extends that to eliminate the dead comparison left around.
llvm-svn: 364155
This turned out to be surprisingly effective. I was originally doing this just for completeness sake, but it seems like there are a lot of cases where SCEV's exit count reasoning is stronger than it's isKnownPredicate reasoning.
Once this is in, I'm thinking about trying to build on the same infrastructure to eliminate provably untaken checks. There may be something generally interesting here.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63618
llvm-svn: 364135
I can't actually come up with a test case this triggers on without an out of tree change, but in theory, it's a bug in the recently added multiple exit LFTR support. The root issue is that an exiting block common to two loops can (in theory) have computable exit counts for both loops. Rewriting the exit of an inner loop in terms of the outer loops IV would cause the inner loop to either a) run forever, or b) terminate on the first iteration.
In practice, we appear to get lucky and not have the exit count computable for the outer loop, except when it's trivially zero. Given we bail on zero exit counts, we don't appear to ever trigger this. But I can't come up with a reason we *can't* compute an exit count for the outer loop on the common exiting block, so this may very well be triggering in some cases.
llvm-svn: 363964
Teach IndVarSimply's LinearFunctionTestReplace transform to handle multiple exit loops. LFTR does two key things 1) it rewrites (all) exit tests in terms of a common IV potentially eliminating one in the process and 2) it moves any offset/indexing/f(i) style logic out of the loop.
This turns out to actually be pretty easy to implement. SCEV already has all the information we need to know what the backedge taken count is for each individual exit. (We use that when computing the BE taken count for the loop as a whole.) We basically just need to iterate through the exiting blocks and apply the existing logic with the exit specific BE taken count. (The previously landed NFC makes this super obvious.)
I chose to go ahead and apply this to all loop exits instead of only latch exits as originally proposed. After reviewing other passes, the only case I could find where LFTR form was harmful was LoopPredication. I've fixed the latch case, and guards aren't LFTRed anyways. We'll have some more work to do on the way towards widenable_conditions, but that's easily deferred.
I do want to note that I added one bit after the review. When running tests, I saw a new failure (no idea why didn't see previously) which pointed out LFTR can rewrite a constant condition back to a loop varying one. This was theoretically possible with a single exit, but the zero case covered it in practice. With multiple exits, we saw this happening in practice for the eliminate-comparison.ll test case because we'd compute a ExitCount for one of the exits which was guaranteed to never actually be reached. Since LFTR ran after simplifyAndExtend, we'd immediately turn around and undo the simplication work we'd just done. The solution seemed obvious, so I didn't bother with another round of review.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62625
llvm-svn: 363883
(Recommit of r363293 which was reverted when a dependent patch was.)
As pointed out by Nikita in D62625, BackedgeTakenCount is generally used to refer to the backedge taken count of the loop. A conditional backedge taken count - one which only applies if a particular exit is taken - is called a ExitCount in SCEV code, so be consistent here.
llvm-svn: 363875
This patch really contains two pieces:
Teach SCEV how to fold a phi in the header of a loop to the value on the backedge when a) the backedge is known to execute at least once, and b) the value is safe to use globally within the scope dominated by the original phi.
Teach IndVarSimplify's rewriteLoopExitValues to allow loop invariant expressions which already exist (and thus don't need new computation inserted) even in loops where we can't optimize away other uses.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63224
llvm-svn: 363619
Recommit r363289 with a bug fix for crash identified in pr42279. Issue was that a loop exit test does not have to be an icmp, leading to a null dereference crash when new logic was exercised for that case. Test case previously committed in r363601.
Original commit comment follows:
This contains fixes for two cases where we might invalidate inbounds and leave it stale in the IR (a miscompile). Case 1 is when switching to an IV with no dynamically live uses, and case 2 is when doing pre-to-post conversion on the same pointer type IV.
The basic scheme used is to prove that using the given IV (pre or post increment forms) would have to already trigger UB on the path to the test we're modifying. As such, our potential UB triggering use does not change the semantics of the original program.
As was pointed out in the review thread by Nikita, this is defending against a separate issue from the hasConcreteDef case. This is about poison, that's about undef. Unfortunately, the two are different, see Nikita's comment for a fuller explanation, he explains it well.
(Note: I'm going to address Nikita's last style comment in a separate commit just to minimize chance of subtle bugs being introduced due to typos.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62939
llvm-svn: 363613
As pointed out by Nikita in D62625, BackedgeTakenCount is generally used to refer to the backedge taken count of the loop. A conditional backedge taken count - one which only applies if a particular exit is taken - is called a ExitCount in SCEV code, so be consistent here.
llvm-svn: 363293
This contains fixes for two cases where we might invalidate inbounds and leave it stale in the IR (a miscompile). Case 1 is when switching to an IV with no dynamically live uses, and case 2 is when doing pre-to-post conversion on the same pointer type IV.
The basic scheme used is to prove that using the given IV (pre or post increment forms) would have to already trigger UB on the path to the test we're modifying. As such, our potential UB triggering use does not change the semantics of the original program.
As was pointed out in the review thread by Nikita, this is defending against a separate issue from the hasConcreteDef case. This is about poison, that's about undef. Unfortunately, the two are different, see Nikita's comment for a fuller explanation, he explains it well.
(Note: I'm going to address Nikita's last style comment in a separate commit just to minimize chance of subtle bugs being introduced due to typos.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62939
llvm-svn: 363289
This was discussed as part of D62880. The basic thought is that computing BE taken count after widening should produce (on average) an equally good backedge taken count as the one before widening. Since there's only one test in the suite which is impacted by this change, and it's essentially equivelent codegen, that seems to be a reasonable assertion. This change was separated from r362971 so that if this turns out to be problematic, the triggering piece is obvious and easily revertable.
For the nestedIV example from elim-extend.ll, we end up with the following BE counts:
BEFORE: (-2 + (-1 * %innercount) + %limit)
AFTER: (-1 + (sext i32 (-1 + %limit) to i64) + (-1 * (sext i32 %innercount to i64))<nsw>)
Note that before is an i32 type, and the after is an i64. Truncating the i64 produces the i32.
llvm-svn: 362975
This change does the plumbing to wire an ExitingBB parameter through the LFTR implementation, and reorganizes the code to work in terms of a set of individual loop exits. Most of it is fairly obvious, but there's one key complexity which makes it worthy of consideration. The actual multi-exit LFTR patch is in D62625 for context.
Specifically, it turns out the existing code uses the backedge taken count from before a IV is widened. Oddly, we can end up with a different (more expensive, but semantically equivelent) BE count for the loop when requerying after widening. For the nestedIV example from elim-extend, we end up with the following BE counts:
BEFORE: (-2 + (-1 * %innercount) + %limit)
AFTER: (-1 + (sext i32 (-1 + %limit) to i64) + (-1 * (sext i32 %innercount to i64))<nsw>)
This is the only test in tree which seems sensitive to this difference. The actual result of using the wider BETC on this example is that we actually produce slightly better code. :)
In review, we decided to accept that test change. This patch is structured to preserve the old behavior, but a separate change will immediate follow with the behavior change. (I wanted it separate for problem attribution purposes.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62880
llvm-svn: 362971
Fix for https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31181 and partial fix
for LFTR poison handling issues in general.
When LFTR moves a condition from pre-inc to post-inc, it may now
depend on value that is poison due to nowrap flags. To avoid this,
we clear any nowrap flag that SCEV cannot prove for the post-inc
addrec.
Additionally, LFTR may switch to a different IV that is dynamically
dead and as such may be arbitrarily poison. This patch will correct
nowrap flags in some but not all cases where this happens. This is
related to the adoption of IR nowrap flags for the pre-inc addrec.
(See some of the switch_to_different_iv tests, where flags are not
dropped or insufficiently dropped.)
Finally, there are likely similar issues with the handling of GEP
inbounds, but we don't have a test case for this yet.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60935
llvm-svn: 362292
Using dominance vs a set membership check is indistinguishable from a compile time perspective, and the two queries return equivelent results. Simplify code by using the existing function.
llvm-svn: 360976
Logic in `getInsertPointForUses` doesn't account for a corner case when `Def`
only comes to a Phi user from unreachable blocks. In this case, the incoming
value may be arbitrary (and not even available in the input block) and break
the loop-related invariants that are asserted below.
In fact, if we encounter this situation, no IR modification is needed. This
Phi will be simplified away with nearest cleanup.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58045
Reviewed By: spatel
llvm-svn: 353816
This cleans up all GetElementPtr creation in LLVM to explicitly pass a
value type rather than deriving it from the pointer's element-type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57173
llvm-svn: 352913
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
The patch has been reverted because it ended up prohibiting propagation
of a constant to exit value. For such values, we should skip all checks
related to hard uses because propagating a constant is always profitable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53691
llvm-svn: 346397
This reverts commit 2f425e9c7946b9d74e64ebbfa33c1caa36914402.
It seems that the check that we still should do the transform if we
know the result is constant is missing in this code. So the logic that
has been deleted by this change is still sometimes accidentally useful.
I revert the change to see what can be done about it. The motivating
case is the following:
@Y = global [400 x i16] zeroinitializer, align 1
define i16 @foo() {
entry:
br label %for.body
for.body: ; preds = %entry, %for.body
%i = phi i16 [ 0, %entry ], [ %inc, %for.body ]
%arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds [400 x i16], [400 x i16]* @Y, i16 0, i16 %i
store i16 0, i16* %arrayidx, align 1
%inc = add nuw nsw i16 %i, 1
%cmp = icmp ult i16 %inc, 400
br i1 %cmp, label %for.body, label %for.end
for.end: ; preds = %for.body
%inc.lcssa = phi i16 [ %inc, %for.body ]
ret i16 %inc.lcssa
}
We should be able to figure out that the result is constant, but the patch
breaks it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51584
llvm-svn: 346198
When rewriting loop exit values, IndVars considers this transform not profitable if
the loop instruction has a loop user which it believes cannot be optimized away.
In current implementation only calls that immediately use the instruction are considered
as such.
This patch extends the definition of "hard" users to any side-effecting instructions
(which usually cannot be optimized away from the loop) and also allows handling
of not just immediate users, but use chains.
Differentlai Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51584
Reviewed By: etherzhhb
llvm-svn: 345814
For some unclear reason rewriteLoopExitValues considers recalculation
after the loop profitable if it has some "soft uses" outside the loop (i.e. any
use other than call and return), even if we have proved that it has a user inside
the loop which we think will not be optimized away.
There is no existing unit test that would explain this. This patch provides an
example when rematerialisation of exit value is not profitable but it passes
this check due to presence of a "soft use" outside the loop.
It makes no sense to recalculate value on exit if we are going to compute it
due to some irremovable within the loop. This patch disallows applying this
transform in the described situation.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51581
Reviewed By: etherzhhb
llvm-svn: 345708
A piece of logic in rewriteLoopExitValues has a weird check on number of
users which allowed an unprofitable transform in case if an instruction has
more than 6 users.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51404
Reviewed By: etherzhhb
llvm-svn: 342444
IndVarSimplify's design is somewhat odd in the way how it reports that
some transform has made a change. It has a `Changed` field which can
be set from within any function, which makes it hard to track whether or
not it was set properly after a transform was made. It leads to oversights
in setting this flag where needed, see example in PR38855.
This patch removes the `Changed` field, turns it into a local and unifies
the signatures of all relevant transform functions to return boolean value
which designates whether or not this transform has made a change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51850
Reviewed By: skatkov
llvm-svn: 341893
Currently, `rewriteFirstIterationLoopExitValues` does not set Changed flag even if it makes
changes in the IR. There is no clear evidence that it can cause a crash, but it
looks highly suspicious and likely invalid.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51779
Reviewed By: skatkov
llvm-svn: 341779
Currently, `sinkUnusedInvariants` does not set Changed flag even if it makes
changes in the IR. There is no clear evidence that it can cause a crash, but it
looks highly suspicious and likely invalid.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51777
Reviewed By: skatkov
llvm-svn: 341777
IndVars does not set `Changed` flag when it eliminates dead instructions. As result,
it may make IR modifications and report that it has done nothing. It leads to inconsistent
preserved analyzes results.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51770
Reviewed By: skatkov
llvm-svn: 341633
Function rewriteLoopExitValues contains a check on isValidRewrite which
is needed to make sure that SCEV does not convert the pattern
`gep Base, (&p[n] - &p[0])` into `gep &p[n], Base - &p[0]`. This problem
has been fixed in SCEV long ago, so this check is just obsolete.
This patch converts it into an assertion to make sure that the SCEV will
not mess up this case in the future.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51582
Reviewed By: atrick
llvm-svn: 341516
This patch removes the function `expandSCEVIfNeeded` which behaves not as
it was intended. This function tries to make a lookup for exact existing expansion
and only goes to normal expansion via `expandCodeFor` if this lookup hasn't found
anything. As a result of this, if some instruction above the loop has a `SCEVConstant`
SCEV, this logic will return this instruction when asked for this `SCEVConstant` rather
than return a constant value. This is both non-profitable and in some cases leads to
breach of LCSSA form (as in PR38674).
Whether or not it is possible to break LCSSA with this algorithm and with some
non-constant SCEVs is still in question, this is still being investigated. I wasn't
able to construct such a test so far, so maybe this situation is impossible. If it is,
it will go as a separate fix.
Rather than do it, it is always correct to just invoke `expandCodeFor` unconditionally:
it behaves smarter about insertion points, and as side effect of this it will choose a
constant value for SCEVConstants. For other SCEVs it may end up finding a better insertion
point. So it should not be worse in any case.
NOTE: So far the only known case for which this transform may break LCSSA is mapping
of SCEVConstant to an instruction. However there is a suspicion that the entire algorithm
can compromise LCSSA form for other cases as well (yet not proved).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51286
Reviewed By: etherzhhb
llvm-svn: 341345
Nikita Popov