One case where overflow happens in the first loop iteration, and
two cases where we switch to a dynamically dead IV with post/pre
increment, respectively.
llvm-svn: 361189
These are all of the ones involving the same data layout string. Remainder take a bit more consideration, but at least everything can be auto-updated now.
llvm-svn: 360961
Summary:
Currently we express umin as `~umax(~x, ~y)`. However, this becomes
a problem for operands in non-integral pointer spaces, because `~x`
is not something we can compute for `x` non-integral. However, since
comparisons are generally still allowed, we are actually able to
express `umin(x, y)` directly as long as we don't try to express is
as a umax. Support this by adding an explicit umin/smin representation
to SCEV. We do this by factoring the existing getUMax/getSMax functions
into a new function that does all four. The previous two functions were
largely identical.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50167
llvm-svn: 360159
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
A SCEV is not low-cost just because you can divide it by a power of 2. We need to also
check what we are dividing to make sure it too is not a high-code expansion. This helps
to not expand the exit value of certain loops, helping not to bloat the code.
The change in no-iv-rewrite.ll is reverting back to what it was testing before rL194116,
and looks a lot like the other tests in replace-loop-exit-folds.ll.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58435
llvm-svn: 355393
In some cases, MaxBECount can be less precise than ExactBECount for AND
and OR (the AND case was PR26207). In the OR test case, both ExactBECounts are
undef, but MaxBECount are different, so we hit the assertion below. This
patch uses the same solution the AND case already uses.
Assertion failed:
((isa<SCEVCouldNotCompute>(ExactNotTaken) || !isa<SCEVCouldNotCompute>(MaxNotTaken))
&& "Exact is not allowed to be less precise than Max"), function ExitLimit
This patch also consolidates test cases for both AND and OR in a single
test case.
Fixes https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=13245
Reviewers: sanjoy, efriedma, mkazantsev
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58853
llvm-svn: 355259
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
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
There is a transform that may replace `lshr (x+1), 1` with `lshr x, 1` in case
if it can prove that the result will be the same. However the initial instruction
might have an `exact` flag set, and it now should be dropped unless we prove
that it may hold. Incorrectly set `exact` attribute may then produce poison.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53061
Reviewed By: sanjoy
llvm-svn: 344223
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
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
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
This patch issues an error message if Darwin ABI is attempted with the PPC
backend. It also cleans up existing test cases, either converting the test to
use an alternative triple or removing the test if the coverage is no longer
needed.
Updated Tests
-------------
The majority of test cases were updated to use a different triple that does not
include the Darwin ABI. Many tests were also updated to use FileCheck, in place
of grep.
Deleted Tests
-------------
llvm/test/tools/dsymutil/PowerPC/sibling.test was originally added to test
specific functionality of dsymutil using an object file created with an old
version of llvm-gcc for a Powerbook G4. After a discussion with @JDevlieghere he
suggested removing the test.
llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/combine_loads_from_build_pair.ll was converted from a
PPC test to a SystemZ test, as the behavior is also reproducible there.
All other tests that were deleted were specific to the darwin/ppc ABI and no
longer necessary.
Phabricator Review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50988
llvm-svn: 340795
This is a follow-up for the patch rL335020. When we replace compares against
trunc with compares against wide IV, we can also replace signed predicates with
unsigned where it is legal.
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48763
llvm-svn: 338115
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
If a trunc has a user in a block which is not reachable from entry,
we can safely perform trunc elimination as if this user didn't exist.
llvm-svn: 335816
This patch adds logic to deal with the following constructions:
%iv = phi i64 ...
%trunc = trunc i64 %iv to i32
%cmp = icmp <pred> i32 %trunc, %invariant
Replacing it with
%iv = phi i64 ...
%cmp = icmp <pred> i64 %iv, sext/zext(%invariant)
In case if it is legal. Specifically, if `%iv` has signed comparison users, it is
required that `sext(trunc(%iv)) == %iv`, and if it has unsigned comparison
uses then we require `zext(trunc(%iv)) == %iv`. The current implementation
bails if `%trunc` has other uses than `icmp`, but in theory we can handle more
cases here (e.g. if the user of trunc is bitcast).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47928
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 335020
This reverts r334428. It incorrectly marks some multiplications as nuw. Tim
Shen is working on a proper fix.
Original commit message:
[SCEV] Add nuw/nsw to mul ops in StrengthenNoWrapFlags where safe.
Summary:
Previously we would add them for adds, but not multiplies.
llvm-svn: 335016
IndVarSimplify sometimes makes transforms basing on users that are trivially dead. In particular,
if DCE wasn't run before it, there may be a dead `sext/zext` in loop that will trigger widening
transforms, however it makes no sense to do it.
This patch teaches IndVarsSimplify ignore the mist trivial cases of that.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47974
Reviewed By: sanjoy
llvm-svn: 334567
Summary:
Previously we would add them for adds, but not multiplies.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits, hiraditya
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48038
llvm-svn: 334428
In order to set breakpoints on labels and list source code around
labels, we need collect debug information for labels, i.e., label
name, the function label belong, line number in the file, and the
address label located. In order to keep these information in LLVM
IR and to allow backend to generate debug information correctly.
We create a new kind of metadata for labels, DILabel. The format
of DILabel is
!DILabel(scope: !1, name: "foo", file: !2, line: 3)
We hope to keep debug information as much as possible even the
code is optimized. So, we create a new kind of intrinsic for label
metadata to avoid the metadata is eliminated with basic block.
The intrinsic will keep existing if we keep it from optimized out.
The format of the intrinsic is
llvm.dbg.label(metadata !1)
It has only one argument, that is the DILabel metadata. The
intrinsic will follow the label immediately. Backend could get the
label metadata through the intrinsic's parameter.
We also create DIBuilder API for labels to be used by Frontend.
Frontend could use createLabel() to allocate DILabel objects, and use
insertLabel() to insert llvm.dbg.label intrinsic in LLVM IR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45024
Patch by Hsiangkai Wang.
llvm-svn: 331841
This patch teaches SCEV how to prove implications for SCEVUnknown nodes that are Phis.
If we need to prove `Pred` for `LHS, RHS`, and `LHS` is a Phi with possible incoming values
`L1, L2, ..., LN`, then if we prove `Pred` for `(L1, RHS), (L2, RHS), ..., (LN, RHS)` then we can also
prove it for `(LHS, RHS)`. If both `LHS` and `RHS` are Phis from the same block, it is sufficient
to prove the predicate for values that come from the same predecessor block.
The typical case that it handles is that we sometimes need to prove that `Phi(Len, Len - 1) >= 0`
given that `Len > 0`. The new logic was added to `isImpliedViaOperations` and only uses it and
non-recursive reasoning to prove the facts we need, so it should not hurt compile time a lot.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44001
Reviewed By: anna
llvm-svn: 329150
Currently, `getExact` fails if it sees two exit counts in different blocks. There is
no solid reason to do so, given that we only calculate exact non-taken count
for exiting blocks that dominate latch. Using this fact, we can simply take min
out of all exits of all blocks to get the exact taken count.
This patch makes the calculation more optimistic with enforcing our assumption
with asserts. It allows us to calculate exact backedge taken count in trivial loops
like
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
if (i > 50) break;
. . .
}
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44676
Reviewed By: fhahn
llvm-svn: 328611
This patch teaches `computeConstantDifference` handle calculation of constant
difference between `(X + C1)` and `(X + C2)` which is `(C2 - C1)`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43759
Reviewed By: anna
llvm-svn: 328609
This is re-land of https://reviews.llvm.org/rL327362 with a fix
and regression test.
The crash was due to it is possible that for found MDL loop,
LHS or RHS may contain an invariant unknown SCEV which
does not dominate the MDL. Please see regression
test for an example.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, reames
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44553
llvm-svn: 327822
It is a revert of rL327362 which causes build bot failures with assert like
Assertion `isAvailableAtLoopEntry(RHS, L) && "RHS is not available at Loop Entry"' failed.
llvm-svn: 327363
IsKnownPredicate is updated to implement the following algorithm
proposed by @sanjoy and @mkazantsev :
isKnownPredicate(Pred, LHS, RHS) {
Collect set S all loops on which either LHS or RHS depend.
If S is non-empty
a. Let PD be the element of S which is dominated by all other elements of S
b. Let E(LHS) be value of LHS on entry of PD.
To get E(LHS), we should just take LHS and replace all AddRecs that
are attached to PD on with their entry values.
Define E(RHS) in the same way.
c. Let B(LHS) be value of L on backedge of PD.
To get B(LHS), we should just take LHS and replace all AddRecs that
are attached to PD on with their backedge values.
Define B(RHS) in the same way.
d. Note that E(LHS) and E(RHS) are automatically available on entry of PD,
so we can assert on that.
e. Return true if isLoopEntryGuardedByCond(Pred, E(LHS), E(RHS)) &&
isLoopBackedgeGuardedByCond(Pred, B(LHS), B(RHS))
Return true if Pred, L, R is known from ranges, splitting etc.
}
This is follow-up for https://reviews.llvm.org/D42417.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, reames
Reviewed By: sanjoy, mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43507
llvm-svn: 327362
There is a more powerful but still simple function `isKnownViaSimpleReasoning ` that
does constant range check and few more additional checks. We use it some places (e.g.
when proving implications) and in some other places we only check constant ranges.
Currently, indvar simplifier fails to remove the check in following loop:
int inc = ...;
for (int i = inc, j = inc - 1; i < 200; ++i, ++j)
if (i > j) { ... }
This patch replaces all usages of `isKnownPredicateViaConstantRanges` with
`isKnownViaSimpleReasoning` to have smarter proofs. In particular, it fixes the
case above.
Reviewed-By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43175
llvm-svn: 325214
The failures happened because of assert which was overconfident about
SCEV's proving capabilities and is generally not valid.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42835
llvm-svn: 324473
Sometimes `isLoopEntryGuardedByCond` cannot prove predicate `a > b` directly.
But it is a common situation when `a >= b` is known from ranges and `a != b` is
known from a dominating condition. Thia patch teaches SCEV to sum these facts
together and prove strict comparison via non-strict one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42835
llvm-svn: 324453
ScalarEvolution::isKnownPredicate invokes isLoopEntryGuardedByCond without check
that SCEV is available at entry point of the loop. It is incorrect and fixed by patch.
To bugs additionally fixed:
assert is moved after the check whether loop is not a nullptr.
Usage of isLoopEntryGuardedByCond in ScalarEvolution::isImpliedCondOperandsViaNoOverflow
is guarded by isAvailableAtLoopEntry.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, anna, dorit, reames
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42417
llvm-svn: 324204
ScalarEvolution::isKnownPredicate invokes isLoopEntryGuardedByCond without check
that SCEV is available at entry point of the loop. It is incorrect and fixed by patch.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, anna, dorit
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42165
llvm-svn: 323077
We cannot move the insertion point to header if SCEV contains div/rem
operations due to they may go over check for zero denominator.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, sebpop
Reviewed By: sebpop
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41229
llvm-svn: 320789
Summary:
The function is meant to recurse until it comes upon the
phi it's looking for. However, with the current condition,
it will recurse until it finds anything _but_ the phi.
The function will even fail for simple cases like:
%i = phi i32 [ %inc, %loop ], ...
...
%inc = add i32 %i, 1
because the base condition will not happen when the phi
is recursed to, and the recursion will end with a 'false'
result since the previous instruction is a phi.
Reviewers: sanjoy, atrick
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: Ka-Ka, bjope, llvm-commits
Committing on behalf of: Bevin Hansson (bevinh)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40946
llvm-svn: 320700
Turns out we can have comparisons which are indirect users of the induction variable that we can make invariant. In this case, there is no loop invariant value contributing and we'd fail an assert.
The test case was found by a java fuzzer and reduced. It's a real cornercase. You have to have a static loop which we've already proven only executes once, but haven't broken the backedge on, and an inner phi whose result can be constant folded by SCEV using exit count reasoning but not proven by isKnownPredicate. To my knowledge, only the fuzzer has hit this case.
llvm-svn: 319583
As noted in the nice block comment, the previous code didn't actually handle multi-entry loops correctly, it just assumed SCEV didn't analyze such loops. Given SCEV has comments to the contrary, that seems a bit suspect. More importantly, the pass actually requires loopsimplify form which ensures a loop-preheader is available. Remove the excessive generaility and shorten the code greatly.
Note that we do successfully analyze many multi-entry loops, but we do so by converting them to single entry loops. See the added test case.
llvm-svn: 316976
This patch allows SCEVFindUnsafe algorithm to tread division by any non-positive
value as safe. Previously, it could only recognize non-zero constants.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39228
llvm-svn: 316568
The type of a SCEVConstant may not match the corresponding LLVM Value.
In this case, we skip the constant folding for now.
TODO: Replace ConstantInt Zero by ConstantPointerNull
llvm-svn: 314531
This patch tries to transform cases like:
for (unsigned i = 0; i < N; i += 2) {
bool c0 = (i & 0x1) == 0;
bool c1 = ((i + 1) & 0x1) == 1;
}
To
for (unsigned i = 0; i < N; i += 2) {
bool c0 = true;
bool c1 = true;
}
This commit also update test/Transforms/IndVarSimplify/replace-srem-by-urem.ll to prevent constant folding.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38272
llvm-svn: 314266
Since now SCEV can handle 'urem', an 'urem' is a better canonical form than an 'srem' because it has well-defined behavior
This is a follow up of D34598
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38072
llvm-svn: 314125
If SCEV can prove that the backedge taken count for a loop is zero, it does not
need to "understand" a recursive PHI to compute its exiting value.
This should fix PR33885.
llvm-svn: 309758
The patch was reverted due to a bug. The bug was that if the IV is the 2nd operand of the icmp
instruction, then the "Pred" variable gets swapped and differs from the instruction's predicate.
In this patch we use the original predicate to do the transformation.
Also added a test case that exercises this situation.
Differentian Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35107
llvm-svn: 307477
It seems that the patch was reverted by mistake. Clang testing showed failure of the
MathExtras.SaturatingMultiply test, however I was unable to reproduce the issue on the
fresh code base and was able to confirm that the transformation introduced by the change
does not happen in the said test. This gives a strong confidence that the actual reason of
the failure of the initial patch was somewhere else, and that problem now seems to be
fixed. Re-submitting the change to confirm that.
llvm-svn: 307244
This adds exact flags to AShr/LShr flags where we can statically
prove it is valid using the range of induction variables. This
allows further optimisations to remove extra loads.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34207
llvm-svn: 307157
This patch seems to cause failures of test MathExtras.SaturatingMultiply on
multiple buildbots. Reverting until the reason of that is clarified.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL307126
llvm-svn: 307135
-If there is a IndVar which is known to be non-negative, and there is a value which is also non-negative,
then signed and unsigned comparisons between them produce the same result. Both of those can be
seen in the same loop. To allow other optimizations to simplify them, we turn all instructions like
%c = icmp slt i32 %iv, %b
to
%c = icmp ult i32 %iv, %b
if both %iv and %b are known to be non-negative.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34979
llvm-svn: 307126
MulOpsInlineThreshold option of SCEV is defaulted to 1000, which is inadequately high.
When constructing SCEVs of expressions like:
x1 = a * a
x2 = x1 * x1
x3 = x2 * x2
...
We actually have huge SCEVs with max allowed amount of operands inlined.
Such expressions are easy to get from unrolling of loops looking like
x = a
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
x = x * x
Or more tricky cases where big powers are involved. If some non-linear analysis
tries to work with a SCEV that has 1000 operands, it may lead to excessively long
compilation. The attached test does not pass within 1 minute with default threshold.
This patch decreases its default value to 32, which looks much more reasonable if we
use analyzes with complexity O(N^2) or O(N^3) working with SCEV.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34397
llvm-svn: 305882
This change adds an option disable-lftr to be able to disable Linear Function Test Replace optimization.
By default option is off so current behavior is not changed.
Reviewers: reames, sanjoy, wmi, andreadb, apilipenko
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33979
llvm-svn: 305055
Transforms/IndVarSimplify/2011-10-27-lftrnull will fail if this regresses.
Transforms/GVN/PRE/2011-06-01-NonLocalMemdepMiscompile.ll has been changed to still test what it was
trying to test.
llvm-svn: 302446
Since there is no sdiv in SCEV, an 'udiv' is a better canonical form than an 'sdiv' as the user of induction variable
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31488
llvm-svn: 299118
Currently the default C calling convention functions are treated
the same as compute kernels. Make this explicit so the default
calling convention can be changed to a non-kernel.
Converted with perl -pi -e 's/define void/define amdgpu_kernel void/'
on the relevant test directories (and undoing in one place that actually
wanted a non-kernel).
llvm-svn: 298444
Summary:
Previously we used to return a bogus result, 0, for IR like `ashr %val,
-1`.
I've also added an assert checking that `ComputeNumSignBits` at least
returns 1. That assert found an already checked in test case where we
were returning a bad result for `ashr %val, -1`.
Fixes PR32045.
Reviewers: spatel, majnemer
Reviewed By: spatel, majnemer
Subscribers: efriedma, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30311
llvm-svn: 296273
When both WidenIV::getWideRecurrence and WidenIV::getExtendedOperandRecurrence
return non-null but different WideAddRec, if getWideRecurrence is called
before getExtendedOperandRecurrence, we won't bother to call
getExtendedOperandRecurrence again. But As we know it is possible that after
SCEV folding, we cannot prove the legality using the SCEVAddRecExpr returned
by getWideRecurrence. Meanwhile if getExtendedOperandRecurrence returns non-null
WideAddRec, we know for sure that it is legal to do widening for current instruction.
So it is better to put getExtendedOperandRecurrence before getWideRecurrence, which
will increase the chance of successful widening.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26059
llvm-svn: 286987
This change is motivated by the case when IndVarSimplify doesn't widen a comparison of IV increment because it can't prove IV increment being non-negative. We end up with a redundant trunc of the widened increment on this example.
for.body:
%i = phi i32 [ %start, %for.body.lr.ph ], [ %i.inc, %for.inc ]
%within_limits = icmp ult i32 %i, 64
br i1 %within_limits, label %continue, label %for.end
continue:
%i.i64 = zext i32 %i to i64
%arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %base, i64 %i.i64
%val = load i32, i32* %arrayidx, align 4
br label %for.inc
for.inc:
%i.inc = add nsw nuw i32 %i, 1
%cmp = icmp slt i32 %i.inc, %limit
br i1 %cmp, label %for.body, label %for.end
There is a range check inside of the loop which guarantees the IV to be non-negative. NSW on the increment guarantees that the increment is also non-negative. Teach IndVarSimplify to use the range check to prove non-negativity of loop increments.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25738
llvm-svn: 284629
Summary:
The patch fixes regression caused by two earlier patches D18777 and D18867.
Reviewers: reames, sanjoy
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D24280
From: Li Huang
llvm-svn: 282650
This change needs to be reverted in order to revert -r278267 which cause performance regression on MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/Symbolics-flt/Symbolics-flt from LNT and some other bechmarks.
See comments on https://reviews.llvm.org/D18777 for details.
llvm-svn: 279432
`IVVisitor::visitCast` used to have the invariant that if the
instruction it was passed was a sext or zext instruction, the result of
the instruction would be wider than the induction variable. This is no
longer true after rL275037, so this change teaches `IndVarSimplify` s
implementation of `IVVisitor::visitCast` to work with the relaxed
invariant.
A corresponding change to SimplifyIndVar to preserve the said invariant
after rL275037 would also work, but given how `IVVisitor::visitCast` is
spelled (no indication of said invariant), I figured the current fix is
cleaner.
Fixes PR28935.
llvm-svn: 278584
When legal, extending trip count in the loop control logic generates better code compared to truncating IV. This is because
(1) extending trip count is a loop invariant operation (see genLoopLimit where we prove trip count is loop invariant).
(2) Scalar Evolution seems to have problems understanding trunc when computing loop trip count. So removing them allows better analysis performed in Scalar Evolution. (In particular this fixes PR 28363 which is the motivation for this change).
I am not going to perform any performance test. Any degradation caused by this should be an indication of a bug elsewhere.
To prove legality, we rely on SCEV to prove zext(trunc(IV)) == IV (or similarly for sext). If this holds, we can prove equivalence of trunc(IV)==ExitCnt (1) and IV == zext(ExitCnt). Simply take zext of boths sides of (1) and apply the proven equivalence.
This commit contains changes in a newly added testcase which was not included in the previous commit (which was reverted later on).
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23075
llvm-svn: 278421
When legal, extending trip count in the loop control logic generates better code compared to truncating IV. This is because
(1) extending trip count is a loop invariant operation (see genLoopLimit where we prove trip count is loop invariant).
(2) Scalar Evolution seems to have problems understanding trunc when computing loop trip count. So removing them allows better analysis performed in Scalar Evolution. (In particular this fixes PR 28363 which is the motivation for this change).
I am not going to perform any performance test. Any degradation caused by this should be an indication of a bug elsewhere.
To prove legality, we rely on SCEV to prove zext(trunc(IV)) == IV (or similarly for sext). If this holds, we can prove equivalence of trunc(IV)==ExitCnt (1) and IV == zext(ExitCnt). Simply take zext of boths sides of (1) and apply the proven equivalence.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23075
llvm-svn: 278334
Some of these tests need to be cleaned up further to make it obvious
what they're testing, but as a first step remove all instances of
"grep".
llvm-svn: 277648
Summary:
There are some rough corners, since the new pass manager doesn't have
(as far as I can tell) LoopSimplify and LCSSA, so I've updated the
tests to run them separately in the old pass manager in the lit tests.
We also don't have an equivalent for AU.setPreservesCFG() in the new
pass manager, so I've left a FIXME.
Reviewers: bogner, chandlerc, davide
Subscribers: sanjoy, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20783
llvm-svn: 271846
Summary:
If we can prove that an op.with.overflow intrinsic does not overflow, we
can get rid of the intrinsic, and replace it with non-wrapping
arithmetic.
This was first checked in at r265913 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: sanjoy, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18685
llvm-svn: 271153
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:
If we can prove that an op.with.overflow intrinsic does not overflow, we
can get rid of the intrinsic, and replace it with non-wrapping
arithmetic.
Reviewers: atrick, regehr
Subscribers: sanjoy, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18685
llvm-svn: 265913
Widening a PHI requires us to insert a trunc.
The logical place for this trunc is in the same BB as the PHI.
This is not possible if the BB is terminated by a catchswitch.
This fixes PR27133.
llvm-svn: 264926
Summary:
replaceCongruentIVs can break LCSSA when trying to replace IV increments
since it tries to replace all uses of a phi node with another phi node
while both of the phi nodes are not necessarily in the processed loop.
This will cause an assert in IndVars.
To fix this, we add a check to make sure that the replacement maintains
LCSSA.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18266
llvm-svn: 263941
The loop on IVOperand's incoming values assumes IVOperand to be an
induction variable on the loop over which `S Pred X` is invariant;
otherwise loop invariant incoming values to IVOperand are not guaranteed
to dominate the comparision.
This fixes PR26973.
llvm-svn: 263827
Current SCEV expansion will expand SCEV as a sequence of operations
and doesn't utilize the value already existed. This will introduce
redundent computation which may not be cleaned up throughly by
following optimizations.
This patch introduces an ExprValueMap which is a map from SCEV to the
set of equal values with the same SCEV. When a SCEV is expanded, the
set of values is checked and reused whenever possible before generating
a sequence of operations.
The original commit triggered regressions in Polly tests. The regressions
exposed two problems which have been fixed in current version.
1. Polly will generate a new function based on the old one. To generate an
instruction for the new function, it builds SCEV for the old instruction,
applies some tranformation on the SCEV generated, then expands the transformed
SCEV and insert the expanded value into new function. Because SCEV expansion
may reuse value cached in ExprValueMap, the value in old function may be
inserted into new function, which is wrong.
In SCEVExpander::expand, there is a logic to check the cached value to
be used should dominate the insertion point. However, for the above
case, the check always passes. That is because the insertion point is
in a new function, which is unreachable from the old function. However
for unreachable node, DominatorTreeBase::dominates thinks it will be
dominated by any other node.
The fix is to simply add a check that the cached value to be used in
expansion should be in the same function as the insertion point instruction.
2. When the SCEV is of scConstant type, expanding it directly is cheaper than
reusing a normal value cached. Although in the cached value set in ExprValueMap,
there is a Constant type value, but it is not easy to find it out -- the cached
Value set is not sorted according to the potential cost. Existing reuse logic
in SCEVExpander::expand simply chooses the first legal element from the cached
value set.
The fix is that when the SCEV is of scConstant type, don't try the reuse
logic. simply expand it.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12090
llvm-svn: 259736
Current SCEV expansion will expand SCEV as a sequence of operations
and doesn't utilize the value already existed. This will introduce
redundent computation which may not be cleaned up throughly by
following optimizations.
This patch introduces an ExprValueMap which is a map from SCEV to the
set of equal values with the same SCEV. When a SCEV is expanded, the
set of values is checked and reused whenever possible before generating
a sequence of operations.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12090
llvm-svn: 259662
Summary:
This is a revised version of D13974, and the following quoted summary are from D13974
"This patch adds support to check if a loop has loop invariant conditions which lead to loop exits. If so, we know that if the exit path is taken, it is at the first loop iteration. If there is an induction variable used in that exit path whose value has not been updated, it will keep its initial value passing from loop preheader. We can therefore rewrite the exit value with
its initial value. This will help remove phis created by LCSSA and enable other optimizations like loop unswitch."
D13974 was committed but failed one lnt test. The bug was that we only checked the condition from loop exit's incoming block was a loop invariant. But there could be another condition from loop header to that incoming block not being a loop invariant. This would produce miscompiled code.
This patch fixes the issue by checking if the incoming block is loop header, and if not, don't perform the rewrite. The could be further improved by recursively checking all conditions leading to loop exit block, but I'd like to check in this simple version first and improve it with future patches.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16570
llvm-svn: 258912
In some cases, the max backedge taken count can be more conservative
than the exact backedge taken count (for instance, because
ScalarEvolution::getRange is not control-flow sensitive whereas
computeExitLimitFromICmp can be). In these cases,
computeExitLimitFromCond (specifically the bit that deals with `and` and
`or` instructions) can create an ExitLimit instance with a
`SCEVCouldNotCompute` max backedge count expression, but a computable
exact backedge count expression. This violates an implicit SCEV
assumption: a computable exact BE count should imply a computable max BE
count.
This change
- Makes the above implicit invariant explicit by adding an assert to
ExitLimit's constructor
- Changes `computeExitLimitFromCond` to be more robust around
conservative max backedge counts
llvm-svn: 258184
Summary:
Also add a stricter post-condition for IndVarSimplify.
Fixes PR25578. Test case by Michael Zolotukhin.
Reviewers: hfinkel, atrick, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15059
llvm-svn: 254977
Summary:
(Note: the problematic invocation of hoistIVInc that caused PR24804 came
from IndVarSimplify, not from SCEVExpander itself)
Fixes PR24804. Test case by David Majnemer.
Reviewers: hfinkel, majnemer, atrick, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15058
llvm-svn: 254976
The nuw constraint will not be satisfied unless <expr> == 0.
This bug has been around since r102234 (in 2010!), but was uncovered by
r251052, which introduced more aggressive optimization of nuw scev expressions.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14850
llvm-svn: 253627
The bug: I missed adding break statements in the switch / case.
Original commit message:
[SCEV] Teach SCEV some axioms about non-wrapping arithmetic
Summary:
- A s< (A + C)<nsw> if C > 0
- A s<= (A + C)<nsw> if C >= 0
- (A + C)<nsw> s< A if C < 0
- (A + C)<nsw> s<= A if C <= 0
Right now `C` needs to be a constant, but we can later generalize it to
be a non-constant if needed.
Reviewers: atrick, hfinkel, reames, nlewycky
Subscribers: sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13686
llvm-svn: 252236
Summary:
Since now Scalar Evolution can create non-add rec expressions for PHI
nodes, it can also create SCEVConstant expressions. This will confuse
replaceCongruentPHIs, which previously relied on the fact that SCEV
could not produce constants in this case.
We will now replace the node with a constant in these cases - or avoid
processing the Phi in case of a type mismatch.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits, majnemer
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14230
llvm-svn: 251938
Commit 251839 triggers miscompiles on some bots:
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/perf-x86_64-penryn-O3-polly-fast/builds/13723
(The commit is listed in 13722, but due to an existing failure introduced in
13721 and reverted in 13723 the failure is only visible in 13723)
To verify r251839 is indeed the only change that triggered the buildbot failures
and to ensure the buildbots remain green while investigating I temporarily
revert this commit. At the current state it is unclear if this commit introduced
some miscompile or if it only exposed code to Polly that is subsequently
miscompiled by Polly.
llvm-svn: 251901
Summary:
This patch adds support to check if a loop has loop invariant conditions which lead to loop exits. If so, we know that if the exit path is taken, it is at the first loop iteration. If there is an induction variable used in that exit path whose value has not been updated, it will keep its initial value passing from loop preheader. We can therefore rewrite the exit value with
its initial value. This will help remove phis created by LCSSA and enable other optimizations like loop unswitch.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13974
llvm-svn: 251839
Prevent `createNodeFromSelectLikePHI` from creating SCEV expressions
that break LCSSA.
A better fix for the same issue is to teach SCEVExpander to not break
LCSSA by inserting PHI nodes at appropriate places. That's planned for
the future.
Fixes PR25360.
llvm-svn: 251756
Summary:
This patch adds support to check if a loop has loop invariant conditions which lead to loop exits. If so, we know that if the exit path is taken, it is at the first loop iteration. If there is an induction variable used in that exit path whose value has not been updated, it will keep its initial value passing from loop preheader. We can therefore rewrite the exit value with
its initial value. This will help remove phis created by LCSSA and enable other optimizations like loop unswitch.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13974
llvm-svn: 251492
The test case wasn't testing what it was commented to be testing; and
when I tried to fix the test I noticed that SCEV does not support the
simplification that the test was supposed to test.
This change removes the test case to avoid confusion.
llvm-svn: 251053
Summary:
An unsigned comparision is equivalent to is corresponding signed version
if both the operands being compared are positive. Teach SCEV to use
this fact when profitable.
Reviewers: atrick, hfinkel, reames, nlewycky
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13687
llvm-svn: 251051
Summary:
- A s< (A + C)<nsw> if C > 0
- A s<= (A + C)<nsw> if C >= 0
- (A + C)<nsw> s< A if C < 0
- (A + C)<nsw> s<= A if C <= 0
Right now `C` needs to be a constant, but we can later generalize it to
be a non-constant if needed.
Reviewers: atrick, hfinkel, reames, nlewycky
Subscribers: sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13686
llvm-svn: 251050
Summary:
`cloneArithmeticIVUser` currently trips over expression like `add %iv,
-1` when `%iv` is being zero extended -- it tries to construct the
widened use as `add %iv.zext, zext(-1)` and (correctly) fails to prove
equivalence to `zext(add %iv, -1)` (here the SCEV for `%iv` is
`{1,+,1}`).
This change teaches `IndVars` to try sign extending the non-IV operand
if that makes the newly constructed IV use equivalent to the widened
narrow IV use.
Reviewers: atrick, hfinkel, reames
Subscribers: sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13717
llvm-svn: 250483
Summary:
`getConstantEvolutionLoopExitValue` and `ComputeExitCountExhaustively`
assumed all phi nodes in the loop header have the same order of incoming
values. This is not correct, and this commit changes
`getConstantEvolutionLoopExitValue` and `ComputeExitCountExhaustively`
to lookup the backedge value of a phi node using the loop's latch block.
Unfortunately, there is still some code duplication
`getConstantEvolutionLoopExitValue` and `ComputeExitCountExhaustively`.
At some point in the future we should extract out a helper class /
method that can evolve constant evolution phi nodes across iterations.
Fixes 25060. Thanks to Mattias Eriksson for the spot-on analysis!
Depends on D13457.
Reviewers: atrick, hfinkel
Subscribers: materi, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13458
llvm-svn: 249712
Summary:
After r249211, SCEV can see through some LCSSA phis. Add a
`replacementPreservesLCSSAForm` check before replacing uses of these phi
nodes with a simplified use of the induction variable to avoid breaking
LCSSA.
Fixes 25047.
Depends on D13460.
Reviewers: atrick, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13461
llvm-svn: 249575
Summary:
After r249211, `getSCEV(X) == getSCEV(Y)` does not guarantee that X and
Y are related in the dominator tree, even if X is an operand to Y (I've
included a toy example in comments, and a real example as a test case).
This commit changes `SimplifyIndVar` to require a `DominatorTree`. I
don't think this is a problem because `ScalarEvolution` requires it
anyway.
Fixes PR25051.
Depends on D13459.
Reviewers: atrick, hfinkel
Subscribers: joker.eph, llvm-commits, sanjoy
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13460
llvm-svn: 249471
Summary:
This change teaches SCEV that to prove `A u< B` it is sufficient to
prove each of these facts individually:
- B >= 0
- A s< B
- A >= 0
In practice, SCEV sometimes finds it easier to prove these facts
individually than to prove `A u< B` as one atomic step.
Reviewers: reames, atrick, nlewycky, hfinkel
Subscribers: sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13042
llvm-svn: 249168
`ScalarEvolution::isImpliedCondOperandsViaNoOverflow` tries to cast the
operand type of the comparison it is given to an `IntegerType`. This is
incorrect because it could actually be simplifying a comparison between
two pointers. Switch it to using `getTypeSizeInBits` instead, which
does the right thing for both pointers and integers.
Fixed PR24956.
llvm-svn: 248743
Before this change `HasSameValue` would return true for distinct
`alloca` instructions if they happened to be allocating the same
type (`alloca` instructions are not specified as reading memory). This
change adds an explicit whitelist of instruction types for which
"identical" instructions compute the same value.
Fixes PR24952.
llvm-svn: 248690
Summary:
If the trip count of a specific backedge is `N`, then we know that
backedge is effectively guarded by the condition `{0,+,1} u< N`. This
change teaches SCEV to use this condition to prove things in
`isLoopBackedgeGuardedByCond`.
Depends on D12948
Depends on D12949
The original checkin, r248608 had to be backed out due to an issue with
a ObjCXX unit test. That issue is now fixed, so re-landing.
Reviewers: atrick, reames, majnemer, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12950
llvm-svn: 248638
Summary:
This change teaches SCEV's `isImpliedCond` two new identities:
A u< B u< -C => (A + C) u< (B + C)
A s< B s< INT_MIN - C => (A + C) s< (B + C)
While these are useful on their own, they're really intended to support
D12950.
The original checkin, r248606 had to be backed out due to an issue with
a ObjCXX unit test. That issue is now fixed, so re-landing.
Reviewers: atrick, reames, majnemer, nlewycky, hfinkel
Subscribers: aadg, sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12948
llvm-svn: 248637
Summary:
If the trip count of a specific backedge is `N`, then we know that
backedge is effectively guarded by the condition `{0,+,1} u< N`. This
change teaches SCEV to use this condition to prove things in
`isLoopBackedgeGuardedByCond`.
Depends on D12948
Depends on D12949
Reviewers: atrick, reames, majnemer, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12950
llvm-svn: 248608
Summary:
This change teaches SCEV's `isImpliedCond` two new identities:
A u< B u< -C => (A + C) u< (B + C)
A s< B s< INT_MIN - C => (A + C) s< (B + C)
While these are useful on their own, they're really intended to support
D12950.
Reviewers: atrick, reames, majnemer, nlewycky, hfinkel
Subscribers: aadg, sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12948
llvm-svn: 248606
Because -indvars widens induction variables through arithmetic,
`NeverNegative` cannot be a property of the `WidenIV` (a `WidenIV`
manages information for all transitive uses of an IV being widened,
including uses of `-1 * IV`). Instead it must live on `NarrowIVDefUse`
which manages information for a specific def-use edge in the transitive
use list of an induction variable.
This change also adds a test case that demonstrates the problem with
r248045.
llvm-svn: 248107
Summary:
If an induction variable is provably non-negative, its sign extension is
equal to its zero extension. This means narrow uses like
icmp slt iNarrow %indvar, %rhs
can be widened into
icmp slt iWide zext(%indvar), sext(%rhs)
Reviewers: atrick, mcrosier, hfinkel
Subscribers: hfinkel, reames, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12745
llvm-svn: 248045
In `IndVarSimplify::ExpandSCEVIfNeeded`,
`SCEVExpander::findExistingExpansion` may return an `llvm::Value` that
differs in type from the SCEV it was asked to find an expansion for (but
computes the same value). In such cases, we fall back on
`expandCodeFor`; and rely on LLVM to CSE the two equivalent
expressions (different only by a no-op cast) into a single computation.
I tried a few other approaches to fixing PR24783, all of which turned
out to be more complex than this current version:
1. Move the `ExpandSCEVIfNeeded` logic into `expandCodeFor`. This got
problematic because currently we do not pass in the `Loop *` into
`expandCodeFor`. Changing the interface to do this is a more
invasive change, and really does not make much semantic sense unless
the SCEV being passed in is an add recurrence.
There is also the problem of `expandCodeFor` being used in places
other than `indvars` -- there may be performance / correctness
issues elsewhere if `expandCodeFor` is moved from always generating
IR from scratch to cache-like model.
2. Have `findExistingExpansion` only return expression with the correct
type. This would make `isHighCostExpansionHelper` and thus
`isHighCostExpansion` more conservative than necessary.
3. Insert casts on the value returned by `findExistingExpansion` if
needed using `InsertNoopCastOfTo`. This is complicated because
`InsertNoopCastOfTo` depends on internal state of its
`SCEVExpander` (specifically `Builder.GetInserPoint()`), and this
may not be set up when `ExpandSCEVIfNeeded` is called.
4. Manually insert casts on the value returned by
`findExistingExpansion` if needed using `InsertNoopCastOfTo` via
`CastInst::Create`. This is probably workable, but figuring out the
location where the cast instruction needs to be inserted has enough
edge cases (arguments, constants, invokes, LCSSA must be preserved)
makes me feel what I have right now is simplest solution.
llvm-svn: 247749
Here we make ScalarEvolution::isKnownPredicate, indirectly, a little smarter.
Given some relational comparison operator OP, and two AddRec SCEVs, {I,+,S} OP
{J,+,T}, we can reduce this to the comparison I OP J when S == T, both AddRecs
are for the same loop, and both are known not to wrap.
As it turns out, because of the way that backedge-guard expressions can be
leveraged when computing known predicates, this allows indvars to simplify the
if-statement comparison in this loop:
void foo (int *a, int *b, int n) {
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
if (i > n)
a[i] = b[i] + 1;
}
}
which, somewhat surprisingly, we were not previously optimizing away.
llvm-svn: 245400
Summary:
Was D9784: "Remove loop variant range check when induction variable is
strictly increasing"
This change re-implements D9784 with the two differences:
1. It does not use SCEVExpander and does not generate new
instructions. Instead, it does a quick local search for existing
`llvm::Value`s that it needs when modifying the `icmp`
instruction.
2. It is more general -- it deals with both increasing and decreasing
induction variables.
I've added all of the tests included with D9784, and two more.
As an example on what this change does (copied from D9784):
Given C code:
```
for (int i = M; i < N; i++) // i is known not to overflow
if (i < 0) break;
a[i] = 0;
}
```
This transformation produces:
```
for (int i = M; i < N; i++)
if (M < 0) break;
a[i] = 0;
}
```
Which can be unswitched into:
```
if (!(M < 0))
for (int i = M; i < N; i++)
a[i] = 0;
}
```
I went back and forth on whether the top level logic should live in
`SimplifyIndvar::eliminateIVComparison` or be put into its own
routine. Right now I've put it under `eliminateIVComparison` because
even though the `icmp` is not *eliminated*, it no longer is an IV
comparison. I'm open to putting it in its own helper routine if you
think that is better.
Reviewers: reames, nicholas, atrick
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11278
llvm-svn: 243331
Summary:
In RewriteLoopExitValues, before expanding out an SCEV expression using
SCEVExpander, try to see if an existing LLVM IR expression already
computes the value we're interested in. If so use that existing
expression.
Apart from reducing IndVars' reliance on the rest of the compilation
pipeline, this also prevents IndVars from concluding some expressions as
"high cost" when they're not. For instance,
`InductiveRangeCheckElimination` often emits code of the following form:
```
len = umin(len_A, len_B)
loop:
...
if (i++ < len)
goto loop
outside_loop:
use(i)
```
`SCEVExpander` refuses to rewrite the use of `i` in `outside_loop`,
since it thinks the value of `i` on loop exit, `len`, is a high cost
expansion since it contains an `umax` in it. With this change,
`IndVars` can see that it can re-use `len` instead of creating a new
expression to compute `umin(len_A, len_B)`.
I considered putting this cleverness in `SCEVExpander`, but I was
worried that it may then have a deterimental effect on other passes
that use it. So I decided it was better to just do this in the one
place where it seems like an obviously good idea, with the intent of
generalizing later if needed.
Reviewers: atrick, reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D10782
llvm-svn: 241838
The personality routine currently lives in the LandingPadInst.
This isn't desirable because:
- All LandingPadInsts in the same function must have the same
personality routine. This means that each LandingPadInst beyond the
first has an operand which produces no additional information.
- There is ongoing work to introduce EH IR constructs other than
LandingPadInst. Moving the personality routine off of any one
particular Instruction and onto the parent function seems a lot better
than have N different places a personality function can sneak onto an
exceptional function.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D10429
llvm-svn: 239940
The patch evaluates the expansion cost of exitValue in indVarSimplify pass, and only does the rewriting when the expansion cost is low or loop can be deleted with the rewriting. It provides an option "-replexitval=" to control the default aggressiveness of the exitvalue rewriting. It also fixes some missing cases in SCEVExpander::isHighCostExpansionHelper to enhance the evaluation of SCEV expansion cost.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9800
llvm-svn: 238507
Nikita Popov