as well as sext(C + x + ...) -> (D + sext(C-D + x + ...))<nuw><nsw>
similar to the equivalent transformation for zext's
if the top level addition in (D + (C-D + x * n)) could be proven to
not wrap, where the choice of D also maximizes the number of trailing
zeroes of (C-D + x * n), ensuring homogeneous behaviour of the
transformation and better canonicalization of such AddRec's
(indeed, there are 2^(2w) different expressions in `B1 + ext(B2 + Y)` form for
the same Y, but only 2^(2w - k) different expressions in the resulting `B3 +
ext((B4 * 2^k) + Y)` form, where w is the bit width of the integral type)
This patch generalizes sext(C1 + C2*X) --> sext(C1) + sext(C2*X) and
sext{C1,+,C2} --> sext(C1) + sext{0,+,C2} transformations added in
r209568 relaxing the requirements the following way:
1. C2 doesn't have to be a power of 2, it's enough if it's divisible by 2
a sufficient number of times;
2. C1 doesn't have to be less than C2, instead of extracting the entire
C1 we can split it into 2 terms: (00...0XXX + YY...Y000), keep the
second one that may cause wrapping within the extension operator, and
move the first one that doesn't affect wrapping out of the extension
operator, enabling further simplifications;
3. C1 and C2 don't have to be positive, splitting C1 like shown above
produces a sum that is guaranteed to not wrap, signed or unsigned;
4. in AddExpr case there could be more than 2 terms, and in case of
AddExpr the 2nd and following terms and in case of AddRecExpr the
Step component don't have to be in the C2*X form or constant
(respectively), they just need to have enough trailing zeros,
which in turn could be guaranteed by means other than arithmetics,
e.g. by a pointer alignment;
5. the extension operator doesn't have to be a sext, the same
transformation works and profitable for zext's as well.
Apparently, optimizations like SLPVectorizer currently fail to
vectorize even rather trivial cases like the following:
double bar(double *a, unsigned n) {
double x = 0.0;
double y = 0.0;
for (unsigned i = 0; i < n; i += 2) {
x += a[i];
y += a[i + 1];
}
return x * y;
}
If compiled with `clang -std=c11 -Wpedantic -Wall -O3 main.c -S -o - -emit-llvm`
(!{!"clang version 7.0.0 (trunk 337339) (llvm/trunk 337344)"})
it produces scalar code with the loop not unrolled with the unsigned `n` and
`i` (like shown above), but vectorized and unrolled loop with signed `n` and
`i`. With the changes made in this commit the unsigned version will be
vectorized (though not unrolled for unclear reasons).
How it all works:
Let say we have an AddExpr that looks like (C + x + y + ...), where C
is a constant and x, y, ... are arbitrary SCEVs. Let's compute the
minimum number of trailing zeroes guaranteed of that sum w/o the
constant term: (x + y + ...). If, for example, those terms look like
follows:
i
XXXX...X000
YYYY...YY00
...
ZZZZ...0000
then the rightmost non-guaranteed-zero bit (a potential one at i-th
position above) can change the bits of the sum to the left (and at
i-th position itself), but it can not possibly change the bits to the
right. So we can compute the number of trailing zeroes by taking a
minimum between the numbers of trailing zeroes of the terms.
Now let's say that our original sum with the constant is effectively
just C + X, where X = x + y + .... Let's also say that we've got 2
guaranteed trailing zeros for X:
j
CCCC...CCCC
XXXX...XX00 // this is X = (x + y + ...)
Any bit of C to the left of j may in the end cause the C + X sum to
wrap, but the rightmost 2 bits of C (at positions j and j - 1) do not
affect wrapping in any way. If the upper bits cause a wrap, it will be
a wrap regardless of the values of the 2 least significant bits of C.
If the upper bits do not cause a wrap, it won't be a wrap regardless
of the values of the 2 bits on the right (again).
So let's split C to 2 constants like follows:
0000...00CC = D
CCCC...CC00 = (C - D)
and represent the whole sum as D + (C - D + X). The second term of
this new sum looks like this:
CCCC...CC00
XXXX...XX00
----------- // let's add them up
YYYY...YY00
The sum above (let's call it Y)) may or may not wrap, we don't know,
so we need to keep it under a sext/zext. Adding D to that sum though
will never wrap, signed or unsigned, if performed on the original bit
width or the extended one, because all that that final add does is
setting the 2 least significant bits of Y to the bits of D:
YYYY...YY00 = Y
0000...00CC = D
----------- <nuw><nsw>
YYYY...YYCC
Which means we can safely move that D out of the sext or zext and
claim that the top-level sum neither sign wraps nor unsigned wraps.
Let's run an example, let's say we're working in i8's and the original
expression (zext's or sext's operand) is 21 + 12x + 8y. So it goes
like this:
0001 0101 // 21
XXXX XX00 // 12x
YYYY Y000 // 8y
0001 0101 // 21
ZZZZ ZZ00 // 12x + 8y
0000 0001 // D
0001 0100 // 21 - D = 20
ZZZZ ZZ00 // 12x + 8y
0000 0001 // D
WWWW WW00 // 21 - D + 12x + 8y = 20 + 12x + 8y
therefore zext(21 + 12x + 8y) = (1 + zext(20 + 12x + 8y))<nuw><nsw>
This approach could be improved if we move away from using trailing
zeroes and use KnownBits instead. For instance, with KnownBits we could
have the following picture:
i
10 1110...0011 // this is C
XX X1XX...XX00 // this is X = (x + y + ...)
Notice that some of the bits of X are known ones, also notice that
known bits of X are interspersed with unknown bits and not grouped on
the rigth or left.
We can see at the position i that C(i) and X(i) are both known ones,
therefore the (i + 1)th carry bit is guaranteed to be 1 regardless of
the bits of C to the right of i. For instance, the C(i - 1) bit only
affects the bits of the sum at positions i - 1 and i, and does not
influence if the sum is going to wrap or not. Therefore we could split
the constant C the following way:
i
00 0010...0011 = D
10 1100...0000 = (C - D)
Let's compute the KnownBits of (C - D) + X:
XX1 1 = carry bit, blanks stand for known zeroes
10 1100...0000 = (C - D)
XX X1XX...XX00 = X
--- -----------
XX X0XX...XX00
Will this add wrap or not essentially depends on bits of X. Adding D
to this sum, however, is guaranteed to not to wrap:
0 X
00 0010...0011 = D
sX X0XX...XX00 = (C - D) + X
--- -----------
sX XXXX XX11
As could be seen above, adding D preserves the sign bit of (C - D) +
X, if any, and has a guaranteed 0 carry out, as expected.
The more bits of (C - D) we constrain, the better the transformations
introduced here canonicalize expressions as it leaves less freedom to
what values the constant part of ((C - D) + x + y + ...) can take.
Reviewed By: mzolotukhin, efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48853
llvm-svn: 337943
ed047b0184