Also collect conditions from assume up-front in applyLoopGuards.
This allows re-using the logic to handle logical ANDs as assume
conditions.
It should should pave the road for a fix for #55645.
When computing the BECount for multi-exit loops, we need to combine
individual exit counts using umin_seq rather than umin. This is
because an earlier exit may exit on the first iteration, in which
case later exit expressions will not be evaluated and could be
poisonous. We cannot propagate potential poison values from later
exits.
In particular, this avoids the introduction of "branch on poison"
UB when optimizing multi-exit loops.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124910
Most clients only used these methods because they wanted to be able to
extend or truncate to the same bit width (which is a no-op). Now that
the standard zext, sext and trunc allow this, there is no reason to use
the OrSelf versions.
The OrSelf versions additionally have the strange behaviour of allowing
extending to a *smaller* width, or truncating to a *larger* width, which
are also treated as no-ops. A small amount of client code relied on this
(ConstantRange::castOp and MicrosoftCXXNameMangler::mangleNumber) and
needed rewriting.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D125557
Evaluation odering in function call arguments is implementation-dependent.
In fact, gcc evaluates bottom-top and clang does top-bottom.
Fixes#55283 partially.
Part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D125627
Fold %x umin_seq %y to %x if %x ule %y. This also subsumes the
special handling for constant operands, as if %y is constant this
folds to umin via implied poison reasoning, and if %x is constant
then either %x is not zero and it folds to umin, or it is known
zero, in which case it is ule anything.
Fold %x umin_seq %y to %x umin %y if %x cannot be zero. They only
differ in semantics for %x==0.
More generally %x *_seq %y folds to %x * %y if %x cannot be the
saturation fold (though currently we only have umin_seq).
Similar to how we convert logical and/or to bitwise and/or, we should
also convert umin_seq to umin based on implied poison reasoning. In
%x umin_seq %y, if %y being poison implies %x being poison, then we
don't need the sequential evaluation: Having %y contribute towards
the result will never make the result more poisonous. An important
corollary of this is that if %y is never poison, we also don't need
the sequential evaluation.
This avoids some of the regressions in D124910.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124921
The assertion is to check we always get backedge taken count
(`BECount`) of zero when the exit condition is in select form
(`isa<BinaryOperation>(ExitCond)`) and the exit limit for the
first operand is zero `EL0.ExactNotTaken->isZero()`). However
the assertion is checking that the exit condition is NOT in
select form. Removing the the whole assertion since we now handle
select form in ScalarEvolution::getSequentialMinMaxExpr.
Reviewed By: reames, nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122835
This relands commit 8f550368b1.
The test is amended with REQUIRES: x86-registered-target, in line with
the other debuginfo-scev-salvage tests.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120169
Second of two patches to extend SCEV-based salvaging to dbg.value
intrinsics that have multiple location ops pre-LSR. This second patch
adds the core implementation.
Reviewers: @StephenTozer, @djtodoro
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120169
This avoids false positive verification failures if the condition
is not literally true/false, but SCEV still makes use of the fact
that a loop is not reachable through more complex reasoning.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/54434.
This extends SCEV verification to check not only backedge-taken
counts, but all entries in the IR -> SCEV cache. The restrictions
are the same as for the BECount case, i.e. we ignore expressions
based on undef, we only diagnose constant deltas (there are way
too many false positives otherwise) and we limit to reachable code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121104
SCEV verification should no longer affect results of subsequent
queries, and our lit tests as well as llvm-test-suite pass with
SCEV verification enabled, so I think we can enable it by default
under EXPENSIVE_CHECKS now.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120708
Currently, we hardly ever actually run SCEV verification, even in
tests with -verify-scev. This is because the NewPM LPM does not
verify SCEV. The reason for this is that SCEV verification can
actually change the result of subsequent SCEV queries, which means
that you see different transformations depending on whether
verification is enabled or not.
To allow verification in the LPM, this limits verification to
BECounts that have actually been cached. It will not calculate
new BECounts.
BackedgeTakenInfo::getExact() is still not entirely readonly,
it still calls getUMinFromMismatchedTypes(). But I hope that this
is not problematic in the same way. (This could be avoided by
performing the umin in the other SCEV instance, but this would
require duplicating some of the code.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120551
When a SCEVUnknown gets RAUWd, we currently drop it from the folding
set, but don't forget memoized values. I believe we should be
treating RAUW the same way as deletion here and invalidate all
caches and dependent expressions.
I don't have any specific cases where this causes issues right now,
but it does address the FIXME in https://reviews.llvm.org/D119488.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120033
For unreachable loops, any BECount is legal, and since D98706 SCEV
can make use of this for loops that are unreachable due to constant
branches. To avoid false positives, adjust SCEV verification to only
check BECounts in reachable loops.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/50523.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120651
SCEVs ExprValueMap currently tracks not only which IR Values
correspond to a given SCEV expression, but additionally stores that
it may be expanded in the form X+Offset. In theory, this allows
reusing existing IR Values in more cases.
In practice, this doesn't seem to be particularly useful (the test
changes are rather underwhelming) and adds a good bit of complexity.
Per https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53905, we have an
invalidation issue with these offseted expressions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120311
D118090 causes a pretty significant (19%) regression in some Eigen
benchmarks. Investigating is a bit time consuming as the compilation
unit where this occurs is large. Rather than revert, this patch adds a
flag controlling that behavior (enabled by default).
This patch fixes a logical error in how we work with `LoopUsers` map.
It maps a loop onto a set of AddRecs that depend on it. The Addrecs
are added to this map only once when they are created and put to
the UniqueSCEVs` map.
The only purpose of this map is to make sure that, whenever we forget
a loop, all (directly or indirectly) dependent SCEVs get forgotten too.
Current code erases SCEVs from dependent set of a given loop whenever
we forget this loop. This is not a correct behavior due to the following scenario:
1. We have a loop `L` and an AddRec `AR` that depends on it;
2. We modify something in the loop, but don't destroy it. We still call forgetLoop on it;
3. `AR` is no longer dependent on `L` according to `LoopUsers`. It is erased from
ValueExprMap` and `ExprValue map, but still exists in UniqueSCEVs;
4. We can later request the very same AddRec for the very same loop again, and get existing
SCEV `AR`.
5. Now, `AR` exists and is used again, but its notion that it depends on `L` is lost;
6. Then we decide to delete `L`. `AR` will not be forgotten because we have lost it;
7. Just you wait when you run into a dangling pointer problem, or any other kind of problem
because an active SCEV is now referecing a non-existent loop.
The solution to this is to stop erasing values from `LoopUsers`. Yes, we will maybe forget something
that is already not used, but it's cheap.
This fixes a functional bug and potentially may have negative compile time impact on methods with
huge or numerous loops.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120303
Reviewed By: nikic
Our current strategy of computing ranges of SCEVUnknown Phis was to simply
compute the union of ranges of all its inputs. In order to avoid infinite recursion,
we mark Phis as pending and conservatively return full set for them. As result,
even simplest patterns of cycled phis always have a range of full set.
This patch makes this logic a bit smarter. We basically do the same, but instead
of taking inputs of single Phi we find its strongly connected component (SCC)
and compute the union of all inputs that come into this SCC from outside.
Processing entire SCC together has one more advantage: we can set range for all
of them at once, because the only thing that happens to them is the same value is
being passed between those Phis. So, despite we spend more time analyzing a
single Phi, overall we may save time by not processing other SCC members, so
amortized compile time spent should be approximately the same.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110620
Reviewed By: reames
zext(umin(x,y)) == umin(zext(x),zext(y))
zext(x) == 0 -> x == 0
While it is not a very likely scenario, we probably should not expect
that instcombine already dropped such a redundant zext,
but handle directly. Moreover, perhaps there was no ZExtInst,
and SCEV somehow managed to pull out said zext out of the SCEV expression.
zext(umin(x,y)) == umin(zext(x),zext(y))
zext(x) == 0 -> x == 0
Extra leading zeros do not affect the result of comparison with zero,
nor do they matter for the unsigned min/max,
so we should not be dissuaded when we find a zero-extensions,
but instead we should just skip it.
This mechanism was used for a couple of purposes, but the primary one was keeping track of which predicates in a union might apply to an expression. As these sets are small and agressively deduped, this has little value.
Even if the search is marked as terminated after only looking at
the first operand, we'd still look at the remaining operands
before actually ending the search.
This seems pointless and wasteful, let's not do that.
Since we don't greedily flatten `umin_seq(a, umin(b, c))` into `umin_seq(a, b, c)`,
just looking at the operands of the outer-level `umin` is not sufficient,
and we need to recurse into all same-typed `umin`'s.
This lets us avoid redundant implication work in the constructor of SCEVUnionPredicate which simplifies an upcoming change. If we're actually building a predicate via PSE, that goes through addPredicate which does include the implication check.
Note that this doesn't actually cause the top level predicate to become a non-union just yet.
The * above comes from a case in the LoopVectorizer where a predicate which is later proven no longer blocks vectorization due to a change from checking if predicates exists to whether the predicate is possibly false.
Fangrui Song