maxjhandsome
/
llvm-project
forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Wiki Activity
llvm-project/polly/test/ScopInfo/wraping_signed_expr_5.ll

45 lines
1.6 KiB
LLVM
Raw Normal View History

tests: Drop -polly-detect-unprofitable and -polly-no-early-exit These flags are now always passed to all tests and need to be disabled if not needed. Disabling these flags, rather than passing them to almost all tests, significantly simplfies our RUN: lines. llvm-svn: 249422
2015-10-06 23:36:44 +08:00
; RUN: opt %loadPolly -polly-scops -analyze < %s | FileCheck %s
Use modulo semantic to generate non-integer-overflow assumptions This will allow to generate non-wrap assumptions for integer expressions that are part of the SCoP. We compare the common isl representation of the expression with one computed with modulo semantic. For all parameter combinations they are not equal we can have integer overflows. The nsw flags are respected when the modulo representation is computed, nuw and nw flags are ignored for now. In order to not increase compile time to much, the non-wrap assumptions are collected in a separate boundary context instead of the assumed context. This helps compile time as the boundary context can become complex and it is therefor not advised to use it in other operations except runtime check generation. However, the assumed context is e.g., used to tighten dependences. While the boundary context might help to tighten the assumed context it is doubtful that it will help in practice (it does not effect lnt much) as the boundary (or no-wrap assumptions) only restrict the very end of the possible value range of parameters. PET uses a different approach to compute the no-wrap context, though lnt runs have shown that this version performs slightly better for us. llvm-svn: 247732
2015-09-16 06:52:53 +08:00
;
; We should not generate runtime check for ((int)r1 + (int)r2) as it is known not
; to overflow. However (p + q) can, thus checks are needed.
;
Track assumptions and restrictions separatly In order to speed up compile time and to avoid random timeouts we now separately track assumptions and restrictions. In this context assumptions describe parameter valuations we need and restrictions describe parameter valuations we do not allow. During AST generation we create a runtime check for both, whereas the one for the restrictions is negated before a conjunction is build. Except the In-Bounds assumptions we currently only track restrictions. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17247 llvm-svn: 262328
2016-03-01 21:06:28 +08:00
; CHECK: Invalid Context:
; CHECK-NEXT: [r1, r2, q, p] -> { : r2 > r1 and (r2 >= 128 + r1 or p <= -2147483649 - q or p >= 2147483648 - q) }
Use modulo semantic to generate non-integer-overflow assumptions This will allow to generate non-wrap assumptions for integer expressions that are part of the SCoP. We compare the common isl representation of the expression with one computed with modulo semantic. For all parameter combinations they are not equal we can have integer overflows. The nsw flags are respected when the modulo representation is computed, nuw and nw flags are ignored for now. In order to not increase compile time to much, the non-wrap assumptions are collected in a separate boundary context instead of the assumed context. This helps compile time as the boundary context can become complex and it is therefor not advised to use it in other operations except runtime check generation. However, the assumed context is e.g., used to tighten dependences. While the boundary context might help to tighten the assumed context it is doubtful that it will help in practice (it does not effect lnt much) as the boundary (or no-wrap assumptions) only restrict the very end of the possible value range of parameters. PET uses a different approach to compute the no-wrap context, though lnt runs have shown that this version performs slightly better for us. llvm-svn: 247732
2015-09-16 06:52:53 +08:00
;
; void wraps(int *A, int p, short q, char r1, char r2) {
; for (char i = r1; i < r2; i++)
; A[p + q] = A[(int)r1 + (int)r2];
; }
;
target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
define void @wraps(i32* %A, i32 %p, i16 signext %q, i8 signext %r1, i8 signext %r2) {
entry:
br label %for.cond
for.cond: ; preds = %for.inc, %entry
%i.0 = phi i8 [ %r1, %entry ], [ %inc, %for.inc ]
%cmp = icmp slt i8 %i.0, %r2
br i1 %cmp, label %for.body, label %for.end
for.body: ; preds = %for.cond
%conv3 = sext i8 %r1 to i64
%conv4 = sext i8 %r2 to i64
%add = add nsw i64 %conv3, %conv4
%arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %A, i64 %add
%tmp = load i32, i32* %arrayidx, align 4
%conv5 = sext i16 %q to i32
%add6 = add nsw i32 %conv5, %p
%idxprom7 = sext i32 %add6 to i64
%arrayidx8 = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %A, i64 %idxprom7
store i32 %tmp, i32* %arrayidx8, align 4
br label %for.inc
for.inc: ; preds = %for.body
%inc = add i8 %i.0, 1
br label %for.cond
for.end: ; preds = %for.cond
ret void
}