[PM] Avoid getResult on a higher level in LoopAccessAnalysis

Note that require<domtree> and require<loops> aren't needed because they
come in implicitly via the loop pass manager.

llvm-svn: 274712

llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp

@@ -2027,15 +2027,23 @@ INITIALIZE_PASS_END(LoopAccessAnalysis, LAA_NAME, laa_name, false, true)
 char LoopAccessInfoAnalysis::PassID;
 
 LoopAccessInfo LoopAccessInfoAnalysis::run(Loop &L, AnalysisManager<Loop> &AM) {
-  // FIXME: ugly const cast
+  const AnalysisManager<Function> &FAM =
-  AnalysisManager<Function> &FAM = const_cast<FunctionAnalysisManager &>(
+      AM.getResult<FunctionAnalysisManagerLoopProxy>(L).getManager();
-      AM.getResult<FunctionAnalysisManagerLoopProxy>(L).getManager());
   Function &F = *L.getHeader()->getParent();
-  auto *SE = &FAM.getResult<ScalarEvolutionAnalysis>(F);
+  auto *SE = FAM.getCachedResult<ScalarEvolutionAnalysis>(F);
   auto *TLI = FAM.getCachedResult<TargetLibraryAnalysis>(F);
-  auto *AA = &FAM.getResult<AAManager>(F);
+  auto *AA = FAM.getCachedResult<AAManager>(F);
-  auto *DT = &FAM.getResult<DominatorTreeAnalysis>(F);
+  auto *DT = FAM.getCachedResult<DominatorTreeAnalysis>(F);
-  auto *LI = &FAM.getResult<LoopAnalysis>(F);
+  auto *LI = FAM.getCachedResult<LoopAnalysis>(F);
+  if (!SE)
+    report_fatal_error(
+        "ScalarEvolution must have been cached at a higher level");
+  if (!AA)
+    report_fatal_error("AliasAnalysis must have been cached at a higher level");
+  if (!DT)
+    report_fatal_error("DominatorTree must have been cached at a higher level");
+  if (!LI)
+    report_fatal_error("LoopInfo must have been cached at a higher level");
   const DataLayout &DL = F.getParent()->getDataLayout();
   return LoopAccessInfo(&L, SE, DL, TLI, AA, DT, LI);
 }

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/backward-dep-different-types.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt -loop-accesses -analyze < %s | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -passes='loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output < %s  2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='require<scalar-evolution>,require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output < %s  2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
 ; In this loop just because we access A through different types (int, float)
 ; we still have a dependence cycle:

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/forward-loop-carried.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt -loop-accesses -analyze < %s | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -passes='loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='require<scalar-evolution>,require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
 ;   for (unsigned i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
 ;     A[i+8] = B[i] + 2;

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/forward-loop-independent.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt -loop-accesses -analyze < %s | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -passes='loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='require<scalar-evolution>,require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
 ; Check that loop-indepedent forward dependences are discovered properly.
 ;

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/independent-interleaved.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt < %s -store-to-load-forwarding-conflict-detection=false -loop-accesses -analyze | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -passes='loop(print-access-info)' -store-to-load-forwarding-conflict-detection=false  -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='require<scalar-evolution>,require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -store-to-load-forwarding-conflict-detection=false  -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
 ; This test checks that we prove the strided accesses to be independent before
 ; concluding that there is a forward dependence.

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/memcheck-for-loop-invariant.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt -loop-accesses -analyze < %s | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -passes='loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='require<scalar-evolution>,require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
 ; Handle memchecks involving loop-invariant addresses:
 ;

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/multiple-strides-rt-memory-checks.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt -loop-accesses -analyze -S < %s | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -passes='loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='require<scalar-evolution>,require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
 ; This is the test case from PR26314.
 ; When we were retrying dependence checking with memchecks only, 

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/non-wrapping-pointer.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt -basicaa -loop-accesses -analyze < %s | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -passes='require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -aa-pipeline='basic-aa' -disable-output < %s  2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='require<aa>,require<scalar-evolution>,require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -aa-pipeline='basic-aa' -disable-output < %s  2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
 ; For this loop:
 ;   for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/nullptr.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt -loop-accesses -analyze %s  | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -passes='loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='require<scalar-evolution>,require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
 ; Test that the loop accesses are proven safe in this case.
 ; The analyzer uses to be confused by the "diamond" because GetUnderlyingObjects

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/number-of-memchecks.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt -loop-accesses -analyze < %s | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -passes='loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='require<scalar-evolution>,require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
 target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-i128:128-n32:64-S128"
 target triple = "aarch64--linux-gnueabi"

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/pointer-with-unknown-bounds.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt -loop-accesses -analyze < %s | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -passes='loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='require<scalar-evolution>,require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
 target datalayout = "e-m:o-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
 

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/resort-to-memchecks-only.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt -loop-accesses -analyze < %s | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -passes='loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='require<scalar-evolution>,require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
 ; We give up analyzing the dependences in this loop due to non-constant
 ; distance between A[i+offset] and A[i] and add memchecks to prove

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/reverse-memcheck-bounds.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt -loop-accesses -analyze < %s | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -passes='loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='require<scalar-evolution>,require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
 ; The runtime memory check code and the access grouping
 ; algorithm both assume that the start and end values

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/safe-no-checks.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt -basicaa -loop-accesses -analyze < %s | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -passes='require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -aa-pipeline='basic-aa' -disable-output < %s  2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='require<aa>,require<scalar-evolution>,require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -aa-pipeline='basic-aa' -disable-output < %s  2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
 ; If the arrays don't alias this loop is safe with no memchecks:
 ;   for (i = 0; i < n; i++)

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/safe-with-dep-distance.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt -loop-accesses -analyze < %s | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -passes='loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='require<scalar-evolution>,require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
 ; Analyze this loop:
 ;   for (i = 0; i < n; i++)

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/store-to-invariant-check2.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt < %s -loop-accesses -analyze  | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -passes='loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='require<scalar-evolution>,require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
 ; Test to confirm LAA will not find store to invariant address.
 ; Inner loop has no store to invariant address.

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/store-to-invariant-check3.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt < %s -loop-accesses -analyze | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -passes='loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='require<scalar-evolution>,require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
 ; Test to confirm LAA will find store to invariant address.
 ; Inner loop has a store to invariant address.

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/stride-access-dependence.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt -loop-accesses -analyze < %s | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -passes='loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='require<scalar-evolution>,require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
 target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-i128:128-n32:64-S128"
 

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/underlying-objects-1.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt -basicaa -loop-accesses -analyze < %s | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -passes='loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='require<scalar-evolution>,require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
 ; In:
 ;

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/underlying-objects-2.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt -basicaa -loop-accesses -analyze < %s | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -passes='loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='require<scalar-evolution>,require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
 ; This loop:
 ;

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/unsafe-and-rt-checks.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt -loop-accesses -analyze < %s | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -passes='loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='require<scalar-evolution>,require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
 ; Analyze this loop:
 ;   for (i = 0; i < n; i++)

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/wrapping-pointer-versioning.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt -basicaa -loop-accesses -analyze < %s | FileCheck %s -check-prefix=LAA
-; RUN: opt -passes='require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -aa-pipeline='basic-aa' -disable-output < %s  2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=LAA
+; RUN: opt -passes='require<aa>,require<scalar-evolution>,require<aa>,loop(print-access-info)' -aa-pipeline='basic-aa' -disable-output < %s  2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=LAA
 ; RUN: opt -loop-versioning -S < %s | FileCheck %s -check-prefix=LV
 
 target datalayout = "e-m:o-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"