In loops that look something like
i = n;
do {
...
} while(i++ < n+k);
where k is a constant, the maximum backedge count is k (in fact the backedge
count will be either 0 or k, depending on whether n+k wraps). More generally
for LHS < RHS if RHS-(LHS of first comparison) is a constant then the loop will
iterate either 0 or that constant number of times.
This allows for more loop unrolling with the recent upper bound loop unrolling
changes, and I'm working on a patch that will let loop unrolling additionally
make use of the loop being executed either 0 or k times (we need to retain the
loop comparison only on the first unrolled iteration).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25607
llvm-svn: 284465
Summary: The delinearization algorithm did not consider terms which had an extension without a multiply factor, i.e. a identify factor. We lose cases where size is char type where there will no multiply factor.
Reviewers: sanjoy, grosser
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, Eugene.Zelenko, llvm-commits, mssimpso, sanjoy, grosser
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D16492
llvm-svn: 284378
Reappy r284044 after revert in r284051. Krzysztof fixed the error in r284049.
The original summary:
This patch tries to fully unroll loops having break statement like this
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
if (a[i] == value) {
found = true;
break;
}
}
GCC can fully unroll such loops, but currently LLVM cannot because LLVM only
supports loops having exact constant trip counts.
The upper bound of the trip count can be obtained from calling
ScalarEvolution::getMaxBackedgeTakenCount(). Part of the patch is the
refactoring work in SCEV to prevent duplicating code.
The feature of using the upper bound is enabled under the same circumstance
when runtime unrolling is enabled since both are used to unroll loops without
knowing the exact constant trip count.
llvm-svn: 284053
This patch tries to fully unroll loops having break statement like this
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
if (a[i] == value) {
found = true;
break;
}
}
GCC can fully unroll such loops, but currently LLVM cannot because LLVM only
supports loops having exact constant trip counts.
The upper bound of the trip count can be obtained from calling
ScalarEvolution::getMaxBackedgeTakenCount(). Part of the patch is the
refactoring work in SCEV to prevent duplicating code.
The feature of using the upper bound is enabled under the same circumstance
when runtime unrolling is enabled since both are used to unroll loops without
knowing the exact constant trip count.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24790
llvm-svn: 284044
This was first landed in rL283058 and subsequenlty reverted since a
change this depends on (rL283057) was buggy and had to be reverted.
llvm-svn: 283079
They've broken the sanitizer-bootstrap bots. Reverting while I investigate.
Original commit messages:
r283057: "[ConstantRange] Make getEquivalentICmp smarter"
r283058: "[SCEV] Rely on ConstantRange instead of custom logic; NFCI"
llvm-svn: 283062
Summary:
Instead of creating and destroying SCEVUnionPredicate instances (which
internally creates and destroys a DenseMap), use temporary SmallPtrSet
instances of remember the set of predicates that will get reified into a
SCEVUnionPredicate.
Reviewers: silviu.baranga, sbaranga
Subscribers: sanjoy, mcrosier, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25000
llvm-svn: 282606
I don't expect `PendingLoopPredicates` to have very many
elements (e.g. when -O3'ing the sqlite3 amalgamation,
`PendingLoopPredicates` has at most 3 elements). So now we use a
`SmallPtrSet` for it instead of the more heavyweight `DenseSet`.
llvm-svn: 282511
In a previous change I collapsed two different caches into one. When
doing that I noticed that ScalarEvolution's move constructor was not
moving those caches.
To keep the previous change simple, I've moved that bugfix into this
separate change.
llvm-svn: 282376
Both `loopHasNoSideEffects` and `loopHasNoAbnormalExits` involve walking
the loop and maintaining similar sorts of caches. This commit changes
SCEV to compute both the predicates via a single walk, and maintain a
single cache instead of two.
llvm-svn: 282375
This change simplifies a data structure optimization in the
`BackedgeTakenInfo` class for loops with exactly one computable exit.
I've sanity checked that this does not regress compile time performance,
using sqlite3's amalgamated build.
llvm-svn: 282365
Enhance SCEV to compute the trip count for some loops with unknown stride.
Patch by Pankaj Chawla
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22377
llvm-svn: 281732
The fix for PR28705 will be committed consecutively.
In D12090, the ExprValueMap was added to reuse existing value during SCEV expansion.
However, const folding and sext/zext distribution can make the reuse still difficult.
A simplified case is: suppose we know S1 expands to V1 in ExprValueMap, and
S1 = S2 + C_a
S3 = S2 + C_b
where C_a and C_b are different SCEVConstants. Then we'd like to expand S3 as
V1 - C_a + C_b instead of expanding S2 literally. It is helpful when S2 is a
complex SCEV expr and S2 has no entry in ExprValueMap, which is usually caused
by the fact that S3 is generated from S1 after const folding.
In order to do that, we represent ExprValueMap as a mapping from SCEV to
ValueOffsetPair. We will save both S1->{V1, 0} and S2->{V1, C_a} into the
ExprValueMap when we create SCEV for V1. When S3 is expanded, it will first
expand S2 to V1 - C_a because of S2->{V1, C_a} in the map, then expand S3 to
V1 - C_a + C_b.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D21313
llvm-svn: 278160
Besides a general consistently benefit, the extra layer of indirection
allows the mechanical part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D23256 that
requires touching every transformation and analysis to be factored out
cleanly.
Thanks to David for the suggestion.
llvm-svn: 278077
This change lets us prove things like
"{X,+,10} s< 5000" implies "{X+7,+,10} does not sign overflow"
It does this by replacing replacing getConstantDifference by
computeConstantDifference (which is smarter) in
isImpliedCondOperandsViaRanges.
llvm-svn: 276505
In D12090, the ExprValueMap was added to reuse existing value during SCEV expansion.
However, const folding and sext/zext distribution can make the reuse still difficult.
A simplified case is: suppose we know S1 expands to V1 in ExprValueMap, and
S1 = S2 + C_a
S3 = S2 + C_b
where C_a and C_b are different SCEVConstants. Then we'd like to expand S3 as
V1 - C_a + C_b instead of expanding S2 literally. It is helpful when S2 is a
complex SCEV expr and S2 has no entry in ExprValueMap, which is usually caused
by the fact that S3 is generated from S1 after const folding.
In order to do that, we represent ExprValueMap as a mapping from SCEV to
ValueOffsetPair. We will save both S1->{V1, 0} and S2->{V1, C_a} into the
ExprValueMap when we create SCEV for V1. When S3 is expanded, it will first
expand S2 to V1 - C_a because of S2->{V1, C_a} in the map, then expand S3 to
V1 - C_a + C_b.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D21313
llvm-svn: 276136
When building SCEVs, if a function is known to return its argument, then we can
build the SCEV using the corresponding argument value.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9381
llvm-svn: 275037
The way we elide max expressions when computing trip counts is incorrect
-- it breaks cases like this:
```
static int wrapping_add(int a, int b) {
return (int)((unsigned)a + (unsigned)b);
}
void test() {
volatile int end_buf = 2147483548; // INT_MIN - 100
int end = end_buf;
unsigned counter = 0;
for (int start = wrapping_add(end, 200); start < end; start++)
counter++;
print(counter);
}
```
Note: the `NoWrap` variable that was being tested has little to do with
the values flowing into the max expression; it is a property of the
induction variable.
test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/nsw-tripcount.ll was added to solely test
functionality I'm reverting in this change, so I've deleted the test
fully.
llvm-svn: 273079
Use Optional<T> to denote the absence of a solution, not
SCEVCouldNotCompute. This makes the usage of SolveQuadraticEquation
somewhat simpler.
llvm-svn: 272752
We can safely rely on a NoWrap add recurrence causing UB down the road
only if we know the loop does not have a exit expressed in a way that is
opaque to ScalarEvolution (e.g. by a function call that conditionally
calls exit(0)).
I believe with this change PR28012 is fixed.
Note: I had to change some llvm-lit tests in LoopReroll, since it looks
like they were depending on this incorrect behavior.
llvm-svn: 272237
This is NFC as far as externally visible behavior is concerned, but will
keep us from spinning in the worklist traversal algorithm unnecessarily.
llvm-svn: 272182
Absence of may-unwind calls is not enough to guarantee that a
UB-generating use of an add-rec poison in the loop latch will actually
cause UB. We also need to guard against calls that terminate the thread
or infinite loop themselves.
This partially addresses PR28012.
llvm-svn: 272181
The worklist algorithm introduced in rL271151 didn't check to see if the
direct users of the post-inc add recurrence propagates poison. This
change fixes the problem and makes the code structure more obvious.
Note for release managers: correctness wise, this bug wasn't a
regression introduced by rL271151 -- the behavior of SCEV around
post-inc add recurrences was strictly improved (in terms of correctness)
in rL271151.
llvm-svn: 272179
Consolidate documentation by removing comments from the .cpp file where
the comments in the .cpp file were copy-pasted from the header.
llvm-svn: 271157
Summary:
This change teaches SCEV to see reduce `(extractvalue
0 (op.with.overflow X Y))` into `op X Y` (with a no-wrap tag if
possible).
This was first checked in at r265912 but reverted in r265950 because it
exposed some issues around how SCEV handled post-inc add recurrences.
Those issues have now been fixed.
Reviewers: atrick, regehr
Subscribers: mcrosier, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18684
llvm-svn: 271152
Fixes PR27315.
The post-inc version of an add recurrence needs to "follow the same
rules" as a normal add or subtract expression. Otherwise we miscompile
programs like
```
int main() {
int a = 0;
unsigned a_u = 0;
volatile long last_value;
do {
a_u += 3;
last_value = (long) ((int) a_u);
if (will_add_overflow(a, 3)) {
// Leave, and don't actually do the increment, so no UB.
printf("last_value = %ld\n", last_value);
exit(0);
}
a += 3;
} while (a != 46);
return 0;
}
```
This patch changes SCEV to put no-wrap flags on post-inc add recurrences
only when the poison from a potential overflow will go ahead to cause
undefined behavior.
To avoid regressing performance too much, I've assumed infinite loops
without side effects is undefined behavior to prove poison<->UB
equivalence in more cases. This isn't ideal, but is not new to LLVM as
a whole, and far better than the situation I'm trying to fix.
llvm-svn: 271151
Summary:
**Description**
This makes `WidenIV::widenIVUse` (IndVarSimplify.cpp) fail to widen narrow IV uses in some cases. The latter affects IndVarSimplify which may not eliminate narrow IV's when there actually exists such a possibility, thereby producing ineffective code.
When `WidenIV::widenIVUse` gets a NarrowUse such as `{(-2 + %inc.lcssa),+,1}<nsw><%for.body3>`, it first tries to get a wide recurrence for it via the `getWideRecurrence` call.
`getWideRecurrence` returns recurrence like this: `{(sext i32 (-2 + %inc.lcssa) to i64),+,1}<nsw><%for.body3>`.
Then a wide use operation is generated by `cloneIVUser`. The generated wide use is evaluated to `{(-2 + (sext i32 %inc.lcssa to i64))<nsw>,+,1}<nsw><%for.body3>`, which is different from the `getWideRecurrence` result. `cloneIVUser` sees the difference and returns nullptr.
This patch also fixes the broken LLVM tests by adding missing <nsw> entries introduced by the correction.
**Minimal reproducer:**
```
int foo(int a, int b, int c);
int baz();
void bar()
{
int arr[20];
int i = 0;
for (i = 0; i < 4; ++i)
arr[i] = baz();
for (; i < 20; ++i)
arr[i] = foo(arr[i - 4], arr[i - 3], arr[i - 2]);
}
```
**Clang command line:**
```
clang++ -mllvm -debug -S -emit-llvm -O3 --target=aarch64-linux-elf test.cpp -o test.ir
```
**Expected result:**
The ` -mllvm -debug` log shows that all the IV's for the second `for` loop have been eliminated.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: atrick, asl, aemerson, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20058
llvm-svn: 270695
... for AddRec's in loops for which SCEV is unable to compute a max
tripcount. This is the NUW variant of r269211 and fixes PR27691.
(Note: PR27691 is not a correct or stability bug, it was created to
track a pending task).
llvm-svn: 269790
Fix "Logic error" warnings of the type "Called C++ object pointer is
null" reported by Clang Static Analyzer on the following files:
lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp,
lib/Analysis/LoopInfo.cpp.
Patch by Apelete Seketeli!
llvm-svn: 269424
... for AddRec's in loops for which SCEV is unable to compute a max
tripcount. This is not a problem for "normal" loops[0] that don't have
guards or assumes, but helps in cases where we have guards or assumes in
the loop that can be used to constrain incoming values over the backedge.
This partially fixes PR27691 (we still don't handle the NUW case).
[0]: for "normal" loops, in the cases where we'd be able to prove
no-wrap via isKnownPredicate, we'd also be able to compute a max
tripcount.
llvm-svn: 269211
We can use calls to @llvm.experimental.guard to prove predicates,
relying on the fact that in all locations domianted by a call to
@llvm.experimental.guard the predicate it is guarding is known to be
true.
llvm-svn: 268997
In the "LoopDispositions:" section:
- Instead of printing out a list, print out a "dictionary" to make it
obvious by inspection which disposition is for which loop. This is
just a cosmetic change.
- Print dispositions for parent _and_ sibling loops. I will use this
to write a test case.
llvm-svn: 268405
There are currently some bugs in tree around SCEV caching an incorrect
loop disposition. Printing out loop dispositions will let us write
whitebox tests as those are fixed.
The dispositions are printed as a list in "inside out" order,
i.e. innermost loop first.
llvm-svn: 268177
Summary:
Historically, we had a switch in the Makefiles for turning on "expensive
checks". This has never been ported to the cmake build, but the
(dead-ish) code is still around.
This will also make it easier to turn it on in buildbots.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: jyknight, mzolotukhin, RKSimon, gberry, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19723
llvm-svn: 268050
Summary:
Also adds a small comment blurb on control flow + no-wrap flags, since
that question came up a few days back on llvm-dev.
Reviewers: bjarke.roune, broune
Subscribers: sanjoy, mcrosier, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19209
llvm-svn: 267110
Summary:
Add a print method to Predicated Scalar Evolution which prints all interesting
transformations done by PSE.
Loop Access Analysis will now print this as part of the analysis output.
We now use this to check the exact expression transformations that were done
by PSE in LAA.
The additional checking also acts as white-box testing for the getAsAddRec method.
Reviewers: anemet, sanjoy
Subscribers: sanjoy, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18792
llvm-svn: 266334
Summary:
This change teaches SCEV to see reduce `(extractvalue
0 (op.with.overflow X Y))` into `op X Y` (with a no-wrap tag if
possible).
Reviewers: atrick, regehr
Subscribers: mcrosier, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18684
llvm-svn: 265912
This re-commits r265535 which was reverted in r265541 because it
broke the windows bots. The problem was that we had a PointerIntPair
which took a pointer to a struct allocated with new. The problem
was that new doesn't provide sufficient alignment guarantees.
This pattern was already present before r265535 and it just happened
to work. To fix this, we now separate the PointerToIntPair from the
ExitNotTakenInfo struct into a pointer and a bool.
Original commit message:
Summary:
When the backedge taken codition is computed from an icmp, SCEV can
deduce the backedge taken count only if one of the sides of the icmp
is an AddRecExpr. However, due to sign/zero extensions, we sometimes
end up with something that is not an AddRecExpr.
However, we can use SCEV predicates to produce a 'guarded' expression.
This change adds a method to SCEV to get this expression, and the
SCEV predicate associated with it.
In HowManyGreaterThans and HowManyLessThans we will now add a SCEV
predicate associated with the guarded backedge taken count when the
analyzed SCEV expression is not an AddRecExpr. Note that we only do
this as an alternative to returning a 'CouldNotCompute'.
We use new feature in Loop Access Analysis and LoopVectorize to analyze
and transform more loops.
Reviewers: anemet, mzolotukhin, hfinkel, sanjoy
Subscribers: flyingforyou, mcrosier, atrick, mssimpso, sanjoy, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17201
llvm-svn: 265786
Summary:
Fixes PR26774.
If you're aware of the issue, feel free to skip the "Motivation"
section and jump directly to "This patch".
Motivation:
I define "refinement" as discarding behaviors from a program that the
optimizer has license to discard. So transforming:
```
void f(unsigned x) {
unsigned t = 5 / x;
(void)t;
}
```
to
```
void f(unsigned x) { }
```
is refinement, since the behavior went from "if x == 0 then undefined
else nothing" to "nothing" (the optimizer has license to discard
undefined behavior).
Refinement is a fundamental aspect of many mid-level optimizations done
by LLVM. For instance, transforming `x == (x + 1)` to `false` also
involves refinement since the expression's value went from "if x is
`undef` then { `true` or `false` } else { `false` }" to "`false`" (by
definition, the optimizer has license to fold `undef` to any non-`undef`
value).
Unfortunately, refinement implies that the optimizer cannot assume
that the implementation of a function it can see has all of the
behavior an unoptimized or a differently optimized version of the same
function can have. This is a problem for functions with comdat
linkage, where a function can be replaced by an unoptimized or a
differently optimized version of the same source level function.
For instance, FunctionAttrs cannot assume a comdat function is
actually `readnone` even if it does not have any loads or stores in
it; since there may have been loads and stores in the "original
function" that were refined out in the currently visible variant, and
at the link step the linker may in fact choose an implementation with
a load or a store. As an example, consider a function that does two
atomic loads from the same memory location, and writes to memory only
if the two values are not equal. The optimizer is allowed to refine
this function by first CSE'ing the two loads, and the folding the
comparision to always report that the two values are equal. Such a
refined variant will look like it is `readonly`. However, the
unoptimized version of the function can still write to memory (since
the two loads //can// result in different values), and selecting the
unoptimized version at link time will retroactively invalidate
transforms we may have done under the assumption that the function
does not write to memory.
Note: this is not just a problem with atomics or with linking
differently optimized object files. See PR26774 for more realistic
examples that involved neither.
This patch:
This change introduces a new set of linkage types, predicated as
`GlobalValue::mayBeDerefined` that returns true if the linkage type
allows a function to be replaced by a differently optimized variant at
link time. It then changes a set of IPO passes to bail out if they see
such a function.
Reviewers: chandlerc, hfinkel, dexonsmith, joker.eph, rnk
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18634
llvm-svn: 265762
Summary:
When the backedge taken codition is computed from an icmp, SCEV can
deduce the backedge taken count only if one of the sides of the icmp
is an AddRecExpr. However, due to sign/zero extensions, we sometimes
end up with something that is not an AddRecExpr.
However, we can use SCEV predicates to produce a 'guarded' expression.
This change adds a method to SCEV to get this expression, and the
SCEV predicate associated with it.
In HowManyGreaterThans and HowManyLessThans we will now add a SCEV
predicate associated with the guarded backedge taken count when the
analyzed SCEV expression is not an AddRecExpr. Note that we only do
this as an alternative to returning a 'CouldNotCompute'.
We use new feature in Loop Access Analysis and LoopVectorize to analyze
and transform more loops.
Reviewers: anemet, mzolotukhin, hfinkel, sanjoy
Subscribers: flyingforyou, mcrosier, atrick, mssimpso, sanjoy, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17201
llvm-svn: 265535
This way once we teach MatchBinaryOp to map more things into arithmetic,
the non-wrapping add recurrence construction would understand it too.
Right now MatchBinaryOp still only understands arithmetic, so this is
solely a code-reorganization change.
llvm-svn: 264994
MatchBinaryOp abstracts out the IR instructions from the operations they
represent. While this change is NFC, we will use this factoring later
to map things like `(extractvalue 0 (sadd.with.overflow X Y))` to `(add
X Y)`.
llvm-svn: 264747
Summary:
This changes the conversion functions from SCEV * to SCEVAddRecExpr from
ScalarEvolution and PredicatedScalarEvolution to return a SCEVAddRecExpr*
instead of a SCEV* (which removes the need of most clients to do a
dyn_cast right after calling these functions).
We also don't add new predicates if the transformation was not successful.
This is not entirely a NFC (as it can theoretically remove some predicates
from LAA when we have an unknown dependece), but I couldn't find an obvious
regression test for it.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: sanjoy, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18368
llvm-svn: 264161
This was originally a pointer to support pass managers which didn't use
AnalysisManagers. However, that doesn't realistically come up much and
the complexity of supporting it doesn't really make sense.
In fact, *many* parts of the pass manager were just assuming the pointer
was never null already. This at least makes it much more explicit and
clear.
llvm-svn: 263219
work in the face of the limitations of DLLs and templated static
variables.
This requires passes that use the AnalysisBase mixin provide a static
variable themselves. So as to keep their APIs clean, I've made these
private and befriended the CRTP base class (which is the common
practice).
I've added documentation to AnalysisBase for why this is necessary and
at what point we can go back to the much simpler system.
This is clearly a better pattern than the extern template as it caught
*numerous* places where the template magic hadn't been applied and
things were "just working" but would eventually have broken
mysteriously.
llvm-svn: 263216
Building on the previous change, this generalizes
ScalarEvolution::getRangeViaFactoring to work with
{Ext(C?A:B)+k0,+,Ext(C?A:B)+k1} where Ext can be a zero extend, sign
extend or truncate operation, and k0 and k1 are constants.
llvm-svn: 262979
This change generalizes ScalarEvolution::getRangeViaFactoring to work
with {Ext(C?A:B),+,Ext(C?A:B)} where Ext can be a zero extend, sign
extend or truncate operation.
llvm-svn: 262978
After r262438 we can have provably positive NSW SCEV expressions whose
zero extensions cannot be simplified (since r262438 makes SCEV better at
computing constant ranges). This means demoting sexts of positive add
recurrences eagerly can result in an unsimplified zero extension where
we could have had a simplified sign extension. This change fixes the
issue by teaching SCEV to demote sext of a positive SCEV expression to a
zext only if the sext could not be simplified.
llvm-svn: 262638
For some reason MSVC seems to think I'm calling getConstant() from a
static context. Try to avoid this issue by explicitly specifying
'this->' (though I'm not confident that this will actually work).
llvm-svn: 262451
Have ScalarEvolution::getRange re-consider cases like "{C?A:B,+,C?P:Q}"
by factoring out "C" and computing RangeOf{A,+,P} union RangeOf({B,+,Q})
instead.
The latter can be easier to compute precisely in cases like
"{C?0:N,+,C?1:-1}" N is the backedge taken count of the loop; since in
such cases the latter form simplifies to [0,N+1) union [0,N+1).
llvm-svn: 262438
Sanjoy Das